Systematic assessment of the

Child Friendly City/District

(CFC/D) initiative in Indonesia

Final Report (Draft)

The objective of this report is to present final findings, observations and

recommendations about the implementation of the CFC/D in Indonesia.

Marcio A. Carvalho, International Consultant

(macarvalho2008@gmail.com)

Zubedy Koteng, National Consultant

(zubedykoteng@gmail.com)

May/June, 2014
Table of Contents
Acronyms ................................................................................................................. 4
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Report Objective ............................................................................................. 5
1.2 Overall Consultancy Objectives and Scope ..................................................... 5
1.3 Research Methodology ................................................................................... 6
1.3.1 Main research methods ............................................................................ 6
1.3.2 Main Research Questions ......................................................................... 7
2. Analysis ................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Decentralization context in Indonesia and the CFC/D approach ...................... 8
2.2 Understanding the Child Friendly City/District Initiative in Indonesia ........... 10
3. Findings & Discussion ........................................................................................ 14
3.1 Flexibility of the CFC/D Framework ............................................................... 14
3.2 The coordination mechanism – CFC/D Task Force; ....................................... 18
3.3 The role of child participation in the decision making process ....................... 18
3.4 The local action plan on CFC/D...................................................................... 20
3.5 CFC/D Indicators & Data Management System ............................................. 21
3.6 Evaluation Process ........................................................................................ 23
3.7 Sustainability of the initiative ....................................................................... 24
4. Lessons Learn .................................................................................................... 25
5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 26
6. Recommendations............................................................................................. 28
Annexes ................................................................................................................. 33
Annex 1: MDG Overview for Indonesia ............................................................... 33
Annex 2: Summarized Agenda and Interviewees during Field Trips .................... 37
Annex 3: List of Indicators .................................................................................. 40
Annex 4: Core interview questions ..................................................................... 46
Annex 5: Main Governmental Actors Involved in the CFC/D ............................... 48
Annex 6: Description of the Child Friendly Initiative in the sites visited .............. 50
6.1 Surakarta (Solo) ....................................................................................... 50
6.2 Poliwali Mandar ....................................................................................... 52
6.3 Aceh Besar................................................................................................ 54
6.4 Balikpapan ................................................................................................ 56
Annex 7: Knowledge Sharing – The CFC Initiative in Brazil ................................. 59
Annex 8: References ........................................................................................... 65

2
3
Acronyms

Bappeda Regional, District and City Board for Planning and Development
(Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah)
Bapermas PPPA and KB Agency for Community Empowerment, Women Empowerment, Child
Protection and Family Planning
Bappenas National Development Planning Board (Badan Perencanaan
Pembangunan Nasional)
BPMPPKP Community Development, Women Empowerment and Family
Planning
CF Child Friendly
CFC/D Child Friendly City/District
KLA Child Friendly City/District (Kabupaten/Kota Layak Anak)
KPPPA The Ministry for Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection
(Kementerian Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak)
MDGs Millenium Development Goals
Musrenbang Community Participatory Planning for Development (Musyawarah
Perencanaan Pembangunan)
NGO Non governmental Organization
RAD Regional Action Plan (Rencana Aksi Daerah)
TF Task Force

4
1. Introduction
1.1 Report Objective
This report is the final product for the Systematic assessment of the Child Friendly
City/District (CFC/D) initiative in Indonesia consultancy commissioned by UNICEF in
Indonesia. It presents final findings, observations and recommendations that were based on
the literature review, field trip, interviews, and other observations collected by the research
team.
The report corresponds to the draft version of the final report. The idea is that all
interested parts should revise the contents of this document, and after a round of
comments a final version can be designed.

1.2 Overall Consultancy Objectives and Scope

The objective for this consultancy is to make a systematic assessment to document
and collect lessons learnt on the CFC/D initiative in Indonesia, focusing on the districts
where UNICEF has supported the local government in the CFC/D implementation while also
taking into consideration how the initiative has evolved in a non-UNICEF supported
context, aiming to:
i) Review changes or outcomes for children that have occurred since the
CFC was implemented and to what extent the CFC approach has
contributed to these changes/outcomes;
ii) Assess how CFC/D has helped in shaping the inequity agenda and
disparities on the ground in terms of policy, planning and programme
implementation efforts; and;
iii) Identify key lessons learned from the CFC/D implementation.
In order to collect evidence and to analyse some possible results and challenges of
the CFC/D initiative in Indonesia, the analysis of the assessment looked into details of three
(out of the nine)1 key elements of CFC/D in the country, the ones that had the most
contribution from UNICEF:
(a) The coordination mechanism through the CFC/D Task Force;
(b) The role of child participation in the decision making process2; and
(c) The mainstreaming of child rights through the local action plan on CFC/D.
The three key elements selected to be the core of the analyse for this work
represent the foundation of the Child Friendly Initiative; they are the facilitators for the
remaining blocks, and are the basis for the whole initiative. Also, historically, as mentioned,
these are the areas where UNICEF has supported the country’s CFC strategy. The focus on
these three blocks does not mean that the other elements were disregarded. The CFC
strategy takes as core principle that all nine elements are interchangeable and
interdependent. In that sense, all the nine elements were taken into consideration for the
final analysis.
The research team3 visited three localities in the first trip to Indonesia: Surakarta
(also known as Solo) in the Central Java, Poliwali Mandar in West Sulawesi, and Aceh Besar

1
More on the nine elements on section 2.1 of this report.
2
Including, where exists, the children forum.
3
The research team is formed by one national and one international consultant.

5
(district in Aceh Province). A second field trip took place in Balikpapan, in the East
Kalimantan (yellow in the Figure 1). The main differential between the cities/districts from
the first and second trips was the fact that Balikpapan did not receive direct support from
UNICEF during its implementation of the CFC/D. Interviews with government officials and
others involved in the initiative happened in Jakarta; however, the city was not the subject
of the assessment.
Figure 1: Cities/Districts part of the assessment

Map source: Google

1.3 Research Methodology

1.3.1 Main research methods

As proposed in the Inception Report, the main research methods used for this
report were a mix of desk review analysis, field visits, interviews, and consultative meetings.
In terms of desk review, the research team reviewed different documents in order
to better understand the CFC/D initiative, identify trends, patterns, issues and underlying
themes about the Child Friendly Cities/Districts initiative and its implementation in the
country. This information assisted in refining the key questions that were used in gathering
data for the analysis, as well as to frame the analysis in this document.
For the field visits, as mentioned earlier, four localities were visited. The visits
helped in assessing how local governments are implementing the initiative, and how they
perceive improvements in terms of results for children and in the planning process.
During the field visits the research team performed interviews and consultative
meetings with more than 30 representatives directly and indirectly connected to the
initiative, including governmental officials, public managers, children, NGOs, and
adolescents (members of Children Forum), among others. The summary agenda for the
field visits, as well as the names and positions for those that were formerly interviewed are
listed in Annex 2. The core questions that guided the interviews are presented in Annex 4.
These questions were the core for data collection, and were adapted for different
interviews, depending on the context. Interviews were conducted in English (whenever
possible) and in Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia).

6
 1.3.2 Main Research Questions
Table 1 depicts the main research questions that guided the overall systematic
assessment of the CFC/D initiative in Indonesia. The research methods (item 1.3.1) were the
tools used to gather the information to answer these questions.

Table 1: Main Research Questions

Main questions to guide the

Building Block Main Idea4 Look for (evidences):
analysis

Child participation Promoting children’s Are children being consulted Evidence that children and
in the decision active involvement in at regular basis? How are adolescents participated in
making process issues that affect they consulted? Is there a meetings;
them; listening to formal mechanism of
their views and taking consultation? When was the
them into last time this mechanism was
consideration in used?
decision-making
processes

Existence of a local Developing a detailed, Are there local strategies for Document that depicts the
action plan on comprehensive children (municipal/district city/ district strategy;
CFC/D strategy or agenda for plans)? Do they have goals
Evidences that the plan is
building a Child and targets? How do they fit
available for the population
Friendly City into the national agenda? Is
(Internet/printed);
there a coordination body for
the local agenda? Who is in Look for minutes of the
charge? How was the meetings to check if involved
strategy developed? Did it children;
include children? How? Is the
strategy available? Is it
known? Was it updated?
Does the Strategy cover all
children in the city, with
special attention to children
who may be socially
excluded or marginalised?

Coordination Developing Is there a unit to coordinate Where the unit is located;

mechanism through permanent structures the CFC initiative? Who is
Who participates;
the CFC/D taskforce in local government to part of it? Are there constant
ensure priority coordinating mechanisms? If there is an interaction with
consideration of How is the interaction children;
children’s perspective between the coordination
mechanism and children?

4
Based on (UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2004).

7
2. Analysis
2.1 Decentralization context in Indonesia and the CFC/D approach
In the past years Indonesia has been advancing in different aspects related to social
and economic sectors. According to UNICEF’s MTR document (2013), a number of MDG
targets have already been achieved, including literacy rates and those related to
tuberculosis, and many others are on track; however, there are some child-related MDG
targets where Indonesia is lagging behind and unlikely to be met at national level (for an
overall picture of the MDGs in the country please refer to Annex 1). In the same line, the
advances in terms of children are not equally spread in the country. One challenge that
Indonesia faces in terms of realization of child rights is how to address the inequalities at
subnational levels. These inequalities are present in many different dimensions, including
geographical (regions, regencies, cities, districts, etc.); venue (urban/rural); socio-economic;
and gender, among others.
One strategy being used by the country to address inequalities, and advance in
terms of realization of child rights is the Child Friendly City (CFC) approach. Globally,
UNICEF first introduced this approach in 1996, during the second UN Conference on Human
Settlements (Habitat II). The Conference declared that the well being of children is the
ultimate indicator of a healthy habitat, a democratic society and good governance. Over
the years, this approach has advanced and has been implemented in different developing
and developed countries, creating different methodologies that are adaptable for diverse
situations.
Currently, the global CFC approach is based on nine blocks that are a mix of
activities and structures (UNICEF/Innocenti Research Centre, March 2004). They are:
1. Children’s participation
2. A child friendly legal framework
3. A city-wide Children’s Rights Strategy
4. A Children’s Rights Unit or coordinating mechanism
5. Child impact assessment and evaluation
6. A children’s budget
7. A regular State of the City’s Children Report
8. Making children’s rights known
9. Independent advocacy for children
One important element in the global CFC initiative is the decentralization of public
policies to local levels of government, trying to include the civil society in planning,
implementing, monitoring and evaluating policies for children. In this sense, Indonesia has
made considerable progress since 1998 in its transition to democracy and in the process of
decentralization, with the majority of all governmental matters administered through 33
provinces and 497 districts/cities (UNICEF Indonesia, 2013). This decentralization process
was strengthened after 2001, when the country placed the district as an autonomous region
with authority similar to that owned by the provincial government. Regional planning
process started – and continues – to be carried out top-down as well as bottom-up, based
on the principle that planning is an integral part of the national development planning
system, carried out by local governments along with stakeholders in accordance to their

8
role and authority. The idea is that the planning process should be integrated with spatial
planning, and based on local condition and potential in accordance to the local and national
development dynamic (Center for Population and Policy Studies, 2013)
The country’s decentralization dynamic is summarized by Boothby and others
(Boothby, Stark, Simmons, & Chu, 2009, p. 14): “The Indonesia Decentralization Law (Law 32
of the year 2004) delegates substantial national government authority and responsibility for
government affairs to sub-national governments aside from justice, armed forces, police and
religious affairs where these issues retain their vertical structure down to the local level. For
some ministries, including education, health, women’s empowerment and social affairs, local
departments have been created – not as an extension of the national ministries – but as
departments at the provincial level. Though the process of decentralization has unquestionably
complicated the relationship between the national and sub-national governments, the
comprehensive impact of decentralization thus far seems mixed. While many government
ministries and state actors at the national level focus on the difficulties of implementing policy
in recent years, their counterparts at the sub-national levels generally value their new powers
under the current system.”
At the local level, decentralization has created opportunities for local stakeholders
to respond to the development of child welfare, one of which is the issuance of the
Government Regulation No. 40/2006 on the national development planning procedures
that requires the involvement of community participation through musrenbang forum5 held
at the villages, districts, regencies and provinces in the formulation of annual work plan.
The BAPPEDA6 plays an important role in facilitating musrenbang and policy-making
process to ensure the coordination and synchronization of local development plans with the
national development priorities and objectives (Center for Population and Policy Studies,
2013).
This transfer of greater political and administrative authority to district
governments has brought governance closer to the people, along with resources to carry
out new functions. Despite the advances in terms of decentralization of decision-making,
challenges still exist. Given that each local government has its own priorities, legal and
policy enforcement, and decision-making processes, along with varying levels of experience
and capacity, translating national commitments and priorities into action has often proved
a challenge (UNICEF Indonesia, 2013).
The decentralization process CFC in Indonesia
facilitated the implementation of the CFC
2006: Indonesia adopts the CFC initiative.
as a strategy for the country. The
development of Child Friendly City/District 2007: pilot projects starts in five cities:
(CFC/D) or KLA7 in Indonesia was initiated in Padang, Jambi, Surakarta (Solo), Malang,
2006, and in 2007 pilot projects were Manado and Kupang.
launched in 5 cities (Padang, Jambi, 2009: A new model for the Child Friendly
Surakarta (Solo), Malang, Manado, and City/District initiative is created, based on
Kupang). In 2009, the Ministry of Women the achievement of indicators.
Empowerment issued a Ministerial 2011: CFC indicators are reviewed and
Regulation No. 2 of 2009 on CFC/D Policy revised. CFC is turned from competition
where the initiative was defined as “a into recognition.

5
Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan (Community Participatory Planning for Development)
6
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (Regional Board for Planning and Development)
7
Kabupaten/Kota Layak Anak - KLA

9
comprehensive and sustainable system of city/district development which integrates the
commitment and resources of government, community and private sector into policies,
programs and activities to fulfil the rights of children”. Since then, the interest on working
towards CFC/D has grown among cities/districts all over Indonesia.
The 2009 regulation changed the way the initiative was being conducted,
expanding it. According to Malone (2013), starting in 2009, Indonesia started to follow a
competition model where 28 indicators were grouped into five clusters: (1) Policy; (2)
Organization; (3) Programs and activities; (4) Budget allocation; and (5) Reports. In 2010,
the model is revised once more to the one that is being currently adapted in the country.

2.2 Understanding the Child Friendly City/District Initiative in

Indonesia
The current model for the Child Friendly initiative being implemented in Indonesia
was defined in the Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection Decrees 11, 12,
13 and 14 (2011a) (2011b), (2011c) (2011d), all from 2011. The initiative is a strategy initiated
at national level – coordinated by the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child
Protection – and implemented at local level at city and district levels, and in some cases,
being adapted to the villages.
The administrative division of the country is an important factor to be taken into
consideration when analysing the initiative. In a very simple way, Indonesia is sub-divided
into five different levels (Figure 2). The Minister of Women Empowerment and Child
Protection model of the Child Friendly initiative is implemented at City and District levels,
with some adaptations to the villages, creating the possibility that the initiative is applied
not only in urban settings (cities), but also in rural settings (districts). In this sense, in Bahasa
Indonesia the Child Friendly City/District is known as Kabupaten/Kota Layak Anak or simply
KLA.
Figure 2: Administration Division in Indonesia

In the country, cities assume a more urban setting and are headed by the Mayor.
Districts are headed by the Bupati, and have a more rural configuration. Both are elected by
the local population.
The core for the CFC/D initiative in the country is the list of 31 indicators that are
divided into two sets: Institutional Strengthening (7 indicators) and Child Rights (24
indicators), which are also subdivided into five clusters (Figure 3). The indicators try to
encompass the main points of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC).

10
 Figure 3: CFC/D Indicators in Indonesia

CFC/D (KLA) Indicators

31 indicators, subdivided into 2 sets:

Institutional
Child Rights
Strengthening 24 indicators, subdivided into
5 clusters:
7 indicators

Family
Education,
Civil Rights & Environment Basic Health Special
Leisure and
Freedom and Alternative and Welfare Protection
Culture
Care

3 indicators 3 indicators 9 indicators 5 indicators 4 indicators

Overall, the indicators for the CFC/D model being implemented in the country are a
mix of qualitative and quantitative indicators (complete list of indicators in Annex 3).
Positive changes in their values would, in theory, represent the realization of children’s
rights in the cities, and would add in changes for the country.
The process for the city or district to enrol the CFC/D initiative starts with the mayor
accepting the initiative, and officially creating by decree the Task Force that is responsible
for implementing the CFC/D in the locality8. The basic steps are described in Table 2. The
Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection also acknowledges the importance
of involving children in all the phases describe below. The process of involving children has
been implemented mainly through the Children Forum Initiative at local level (city/districts,
and sometimes at village level).
Table 2: Process for the CFC/D Strategy in Indonesia9

Phase Brief Description

a. Preparation Mayor/Bupati agrees in participate in the initiative, and creates
the city’s CFC/D (KLA) Task Force. Initial indicators are collected,
taken into consideration, if possible, the disaggregation of by sex
and age of children.
b. Planning Preparation of RAD – Regional, District and/or City Action Plan
Development; document that contains policies, programs, and
activities to be implement in the city, including the CFC/D
initiative.
c. Implementation Implementation of the actions that are going to be the basis for
the indicators. Much of it, if not all the implementation, is done
by the Task Force.
d. Monitoring Monitoring of the initiative, including the indicators.
Identification of the bottlenecks to the realization of children’s
rights.

8
The mayor/Bupati has also as option not to create a new task force, but to use an existing one already
present in the city/district.
99
Based on the Ministerial Decrees.

11
e. Evaluation At National level, the independent panel commissioned by the
Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection conducts
the evaluation.
f. Reporting With the consent of the Mayor, the chairperson of the city Task
Force sends the indicator’s report to the Chairman of the National
Task Force. After evaluation the National Task Force submits the
results/reports to the Minister of Women Empowerment and
Child Protection who forwards it to the President.

In all the steps of initiative, the city/district (KLA) Task Force is the main actor in the
process. The mayor might start the process, and is the representative of the city at the
national initiative, but the Task Force is ultimately the institution responsible for all the
phases of it. The Task Force is created by a mayoral decree, and should include the
districts/cities representatives of the children, involving, if possible, the executive, the
legislature, the judiciary, the business community, religious and community leaders,
universities, and non-governmental organizations, representative from children (Children
Forum), among others.
The Chairman of the Regional Development Planning Agency (Bappeda)10 chairs
KLA Task Force, creating the interaction between the CF initiative and the local planning.
As a matter of fact, the idea is that the KLA Task Force can influence the development of
the RAD (local 5 year overall strategic plan for districts and cities), creating the possibility of
budget allocation for the initiative, and the sustainability across different mayors.
As the Task Force is formed by different agencies related to children, in thesis it
does not only coordinates how the priorities are being implemented at different city levels,
but also monitors the initiative at regular meetings. The Task Force is responsible for
collecting the necessary information, and reporting on the 31 indicators that are the basis of
the CFC/D initiative in Indonesia. Reporting is done at yearly basis, when the local Bappeda
sends the report to the Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection.
A National Panel commissioned by the central government and formed by
members from the Government, NGOs, and universities does the evaluation process of the
cities and districts that participated in the CF initiative. They are responsible for validating
the information sent by the cities and districts, and by allocating the score for each of the 31
indicators. The indicators add to 1000 points, allowing the National Panel to classify the
cities into 5 categories: (i) KLA (higher level of achievement); (ii) Utama; (iii) Nindya; (iv);
Madya and (v) Pratama (lower level of achievement). In 2013, the Minister for Women’s
Empowerment and Child Protection gave 37 districts and cities a Pratama category award,
14 districts and cities the Madya category award, and four cities and districts received
the Nindya category11. Cities and Districts did not achieve higher marks to be classified in
the two highest categories.
In terms of city and districts enrolment in the initiative, according to a newspaper
article from 2013, Indonesia had 110 of 500 cities/districts nationwide committed toward
building child-friendly cities, as reflected in their development programs. Of the 110 total,
60 are being assisted by the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection to

10
More details on the main national and local governmental actors involved in the Child Friendly
Initiative are presented in Annex 5.
11
http://en.tempo.co/read/news/2013/07/24/055499454/Indonesia-Has-No-Child-Friendly-Cities-
Minister-Says Accessed on February 19, 2014.

12
implement their programs, while the remaining 50 have been able to be self-sufficient in
building infrastructure for children through budget allocations12.
On the contrary of other countries such as Brazil13, where the CFC/D initiative has a
start and an end period, in Indonesia, the process is continuous, and it is expected that the
Cities/Districts KLA Task Forces report every April on the 31 indicators. In Indonesia, the
process cannot be fully classified as a competition, since there is no winners or losers as in
other CFC models. The model is closer to a classification system, where the cities that show
better improvements for children – calculated based on the indicators – are ranked better
than other cities in the initiative.
Despite the fact that the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection
hosts the CFC/D initiative, there is no monetary transfer from that Minister to the
cities/districts. The different guidance and the interviews with stakeholders show that the
financial responsibility in terms of management of the initiative (setting up the task force,
organizing the team, creating structures, financing equipment, etc.) and in programmatic
terms (which policies should be created and/or changed, and how they should be
implemented) is assumed exclusively by the city/district.
To support the government’s priority, UNICEF has assisted the development of a
CFC/D framework in several cities and districts in the country. In each city/district supported
by UNICEF, the fund provided technical support and assistance on the (a) establishment of
a coordination mechanism for planning, monitoring and evaluation of programmes related
to UNICEF’s CPD implementation and allocated resources; (b) establishment of child
participation mechanism; and (c) development of an action plan with clear targets,
timelines, and resources.

12
The Jakarta Post, October 30, 2013. Available at:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/10/30/cities-urged-develop-child-friendly-facilities.html Accessed
on February 19, 2014.
13
More on the Brazil initiative is presented in Annex 7.

13
3. Findings & Discussion
This section presents some findings that are based on the information collected by
the research team, as well as further develops some of the analysis connected to these
findings. The objective is to lay the ground to the next sections of the report: Lessons
Learned, Conclusions and Recommendations. It is important to mention that the findings
are based on the four sites visited, as well as the interviews and the existing literature. They
might not entirely represent all the cities and districts that are part of the initiative.

3.1 Flexibility of the CFC/D Framework

The fieldwork done by the research team showed that the Ministerial Decrees that
frame the CFC/D14 have been adapted to different circumstances. Table 3 summarized how
the sites visited are implementing selected points of the initiative. The more comprehensive
description of how the CF strategy is being implemented in the visited sites is presented in
Annex 6.
One point that calls attention is the fact that the child friendly strategy is not only
being implemented in cities and districts, but also at some villages. For example, in one of
the districts visited – Poliwali Mandar – the district was not implementing the initiative, but
two desas (villages) were. In this sense, the framework behind the CFC initiative is flexible
enough to allow adaptations in different setting; however, the extreme flexibility creates
issues in terms of comparison among different sites, and might create criticism in the
consistency of the overall initiative.
Using the two villages in Poliwali Mandar as example, these villages called
themselves Child Friendly Villages, without being subject of the evaluation process that the
Ministry of Women Empowerment requires. Hence, a balance between flexibility and
control seems to be necessary to guarantee that the strategy is well used, and that the
nomination of “child friendly” for any site is the subject of the initiative’s evaluation, and
has the approval from the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection.

14
(Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection, 2011d)(Minister of Women Empowerment
and Child Protection, 2011c)(Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection, 2011b)(Minister of
Women Empowerment and Child Protection, 2011a)

14
 Table 3: Child Friendly Characteristics for selected sites
Surakarta (Solo)
Location City located at the Central Java
region
CFC/D Geographic Implementation City level, then moved down to
village level
CFC/D Year of Start 2006. It was one of 5 pilot
cities/districts from MoWECP
UNICEF Support Full support since the beginning of
the implementation. The field office
in the region is involved in the
initiative.
Coordination Mechanism Task Force was created by Mayor’s
decree, and meets regularly
Members of the Coordination City representatives from Bappeda,
Mechanism Bappermas, education, health, civil
registration, and social, as well as
Universities and NGOs, including city
child forum, among others. Child
participation in the City Task Force is
limited since most of the meetings
happen during school hours. The
participation seems to be limited to
the child forums’ facilitators (see
below).
Poliwali Mandar
District located in the West
Sulawesi province
Village level, currently 2 villages,
with plans to increase to other
villages
2011. Villagers were identified as
possible success for the initiative
and where invited to participate.
Specific training in CFC/D in
2010/2011, but additional support
was provided.
No dedicated task force has been
established for the CF initiative. In
the villages, the existent planning
mechanisms are used
(Musrenbang)
The KHPPIA is formed of different
social actors at district level,
including district level government
offices such as Bappeda, BKPPKB,
health, education, social; and
NGOs; Universities; Professional
organizations, and faith based
social organizations, among others.
Child representative is sometimes
invited in the meeting
Aceh Besar
District located in Aceh Province,
the north part of Sumatra Island
Started promoting at District level,
but then implementing in 3 sub-
districts with 2 pilot villages each
(total are 6 villages)
2010
After initial training and support for
the initiative, other types of support
were not directed to the Child
Friendly strategy, but to
programmatic activities carried by
UNICEF in the region.
Task Force created by Bupati’s
decree and meets at quarterly basis.
Representatives of sectors/
departments/ government offices,
unit of organizations or related
institutions at the district level,
NGOs/ Universities/ Professional
organizations/ faith based social
organization at the capital of the
district, under the coordination of
Bappeda office. It was mentioned in
the list but there is no evidence on
the participation of children in the
Task Force.
Balikpapan
City located in the East
Kalimantan Province
City level, aiming to
implement it at village level.
2011
No UNICEF support on the
implementation.
Task Force at city level.
It is not clear who the
members of the coordination
mechanism were. It seems to
include representatives from
Bappeda, local Women
Empowerment Agency and
other institutions. Members
of the child forum mentioned
they participated in the
Coordination Mechanism, but
are not sure about NGOs in
the Task Force.
 Surakarta (Solo)
Action Plan Ministerial Decree sets a list of
indicators from different areas that
are monitored. This list is considered
as the action plan for the CFC
initiative. The action plan has been
adopted into RPJMD, by Mayor’s
decree
Child Budget The city does not have one. Reason
appointed is that the city has to
follow a national framework.
Child Participation / Child Forum Two instances: city and village levels.
The number of villages with child
forums has been escalated over time
– they used to be present in all 51
villages but only few have been
active, especially near the central of
city. Meetings depend on how active
is the facilitator for the forum.
Bapermas supplies monetary
resources that are allocated by the
children themselves. Training for the
facilitators was provided once.
According to the adolescents that are
part of the forums, they discuss
topics related to their own reality
such as the conditions of local
libraries and organize child events.
Mayor’s decree mandated child
forum as part of musrenbang process
at village, sub-district and city level
CFC/D implementation and Initiative is implemented top/down,
leadership with full support from previous and
Poliwali Mandar
The villages have no integrated
action plan exclusively to the CF
initiative. The CF initiative is
mainstreamed in each sector at
village level. The 42 indicators at
village level have been the basis for
action plan and as the input for
village development plan
The villages do not have a child
budget.
There is no child forum at district
level, but each one of the two
villages that are part of the
initiative in the district created a
child forum. They were created in
2013 and meet once a month. The
child forums have no facilitators.
Among the topics being discussed
in the Child Forums are religion and
education. Child participation
happens through the already
existed channels, such as the
Musrenbang.
In considering the whole district,
the initiative is implemented
Aceh Besar
The district has an action plan for
the Child Friendly initiative that is
based on the 7 goals stated by the
Bupati’s decree, and in the 31
indicators from the Ministry of
Women Empowerment and Child
Protection
The District does not have a Child
Budget.
Bupati’s decree facilitates its
creation back in 2007. In 2011 a Child
parliament was created. Six child
forums were established in 6 pilot
child friendly villages (in 3 sub-
districts) by 2012. Child participation
is also fomented at schools due to
the linkage with projects from
international organizations (ex.
USAID). The school participation is
not linked to the CFD initiative. The
Children Forums are spaces where
adolescents discuss religion and
school related issues, and where
they engage in arts and sports
activities. Participation is mostly of
girls.
It seems to be a mix model where
top/down and bottom/up are mixed.
Balikpapan
There are no evidence that
the city has action plan but
only the sector program on
supporting the
implementation of CFC,
integrated into annual
program development and
being the reference for task
force team to monitor. The
city uses the 21 indicators as
basis.
The District does not have a
Child Budget.
City Child Forum is very
dominant with strong
presence members. The
Forum has established a Child
Mayor and has 5 main
programs: health and sports;
education; environment;
technology; and religion. The
supporting budget comes
from women empowerment
(BPMPP&KB). The Forum
meets frequently and
organizes routine activities
with resource persons to talk
about particular topic related
to children’s issues. Besides,
child forum strengthen the
role of student organization at
all junior and senior high
school in town.
Not clear from the interviews.
It seems to be implemented
16
 Surakarta (Solo)
actual Mayor.
Indicators’ compliance The city uses the same list as the one
proposed by the Minister of Women
Empowerment and Child Protection,
but has adapted some of the
indicators to their own reality.
Poliwali Mandar
bottom/up, i.e., from the villages to
the district.
The villages started using the
original 28 indicators (before the
2011 change), and adapt them to
their own reality. Now, they use 42
indicators.
Aceh Besar
The district uses the same list as the
one proposed by the Minister of
Women Empowerment and Child
Protection, with few adaptations.
Balikpapan
top/down. Initiative is
supported by the Mayor and
his wife, as they have an NGO
for marginalized children
beforehand, called Asah Pena.
The city uses the same list as
the one proposed by the
Minister of Women
Empowerment and Child
Protection, but focus on
education as the entry point
17
3.2 The coordination mechanism – CFC/D Task Force;
The coordination mechanism in all the sites visited happens through the CFC/D
Task Force (TF). In some places the coordination mechanism for the CFC/D initiative is done
by a dedicated Task Force created with the intention of organize the process (such as in
Surakarta). In others, such as in Poliwali Mandar, no TF was created; in this case, the
coordination of the CF village is done by the regular body that already exists at village level
(KHPPIA). In this case (Poliwali Mandar), the coordination mechanisms meet at regular
basis to discuss diverse subjects, not only related to the child friendly initiative.
In all the cases, the coordination mechanism involves a strong representation from
most areas under the responsibility of the local government, plus some representatives
from civil society. The representation of children in the task force is not constant. For
example, according to the interviews, in Surakarta, the facilitators for the city child forum
sometimes participated in the TF meeting, but children and adolescents from the forums
were not always invited. Besides, the meetings for the TF happened during school hours,
creating a conflict with the children’ schedules. Another example comes from Balikpapan,
where the Child Forum was invited to participate in all the TF meetings.
In terms of civil society participation, NGOs would be the best fit for representing
the local community, and specific interests from outside the government. The participation
of NGOs in the Task Force is limited. According to the interviews conducted during the field
trip, few were the inputs provided by the NGOs and accepted by the different Task Forces.
For the NGOs that participated in the CFC/D effort, there is space for improvement in terms
of overall coordination of the initiative, and real cooperation among the actors. For the
NGOs, at most of the times the governmental sectors are still too centred on their own
issues, implementing isolated policies.
Across the four visited sites, there is no consensus in terms of the influence of
children in the Task Force, and, consequently, in the policies that are discussed in the
meetings. While some interviewees mentioned clearly that the children’s influence on
decision making is low, other consider that they can help and influence the decision making
process. It seems that this influence varies according to the openness of the Task Force for
the participation of children, and it is influenced by how the Child Forum (item 3.3) is
organized and how active it is in the city or district.

3.3 The role of child participation in the decision making process

Child participation for those sites visited during the assessment of the CF initiative
has assumed three different models: (i) the historical participation in the musrenbang; (ii)
the participation at schools, sometimes fomented by international organizations as it is the
case in Aceh Besar; and (iii) the Child Forum that is part of the CFC/D approach15. All the
sites visited for the assessment had active child forums at city, district and/or village levels.
Some had two geographical instances working at the same time. For example, Surakarta
had supported the creation of child forums at village levels, and supports a meeting at city
level with representatives from the villages.
It is also important to emphasize that some visited sites presented a
misunderstanding in terms of the concept of child participation. It was frequent to listen

15
These are not mutually exclusive, and might, in fact, all be present in the same area.
interviewees to mention activities such as “children’s day” as an example of child
participation in the city/district. Child participation should be understood in a broader
perspective related to the realization of child rights, and not only limited to entertainment
activities. For a discussion on this and better definition on child participation please refer to
the mapping commissioned by UNICEF and KPPA (UNICEF Indonesia and KPPPA, Jan
2013).
Further investigation is necessary in order to identify if the child forums supported
by the child friendly initiative are spaces that discuss child issues and emphasize child rights,
or if they work as “clubs” where children meet since they do not have other forms of
entertainment. In Aceh Besar, for example, one of the child forums participants mentioned
that they conduct extra class activities such as playing games and sewing. In that district,
the interviewee mentioned that most of the participants are girls, since the activities they
conduct at the child forum are more prompt for girls than boys. In the three other sites, the
research team found a better balance between boys and girls, but still, the female
participation is higher than the male participation. The example found in Balikpapan
deviates from the other visited sites. In that city, the child forum initiative is very active, and
sponsors discussions with children about issues related to the environment, HIV, safe
internet, etc. The Balikpapan child forum has a coordinator (child Mayor) and has five areas
of work: (i) health and sports; (ii) education; (iii) environment; (iv) technology; and (v)
religion.
Besides the bias towards the participation of girls, there is also a predisposition
toward the participation of older children. In all the sites visited, the “children” who
somehow participate in the decision making process are adolescents (14 and older) and
young adults. In Aceh Besar, for example, in order to participate in the discussions at school,
the children have to be in junior high school, he/she cannot participate if younger.
The research team could not verify if the most vulnerable children participate in the
child forum. Some evidence points to the fact that those that participate are the ones with
better access to school and transport. For example, in Surakarta and Aceh Besar the child
forum is called using social media technology (Facebook, SMS and Twitter) and using signs
at the school boards. Further, some interviewees mentioned that those children that live in
the most remote villages might not be able to participate in some meetings that take place
at night. When asked about children with disabilities the interviewees did not remember
seeing them in the meetings.
Guidance for the child forum was mentioned by adults and children as one of the
big issues that hinder the full potential of this mechanism. While one of the purposes of
child participation is, since young ages, to empower boys and girls, and to enhance their
ability to challenge, discuss and propose better policies, without the proper guidance the
forum might act only as a socialization space, without real participation purpose. Guidance
is important to add content to the discussion, and to improve the quality of the meetings. In
this sense, the existence of trained monitors or facilitators to engage with the children in
their discussions is very important. Some visited sites provided training for the facilitators
when they started the child friendly initiative, and some are still active in the child forum,
for example in Surakarta. In other sites, the children mentioned that they do not have
facilitators. In a third scenario, such as Balikpapan, the older children – who are also the
most experienced in the process – worked as facilitators for the child forum.
There is no guarantee of sustainability of the child forum. The forum is very
connected to Bappeda and to the local representation of the Women Empowerment
agency, and when financial and/or technical support from these offices lessens, the
tendency is that the child forum activities also fade. NGOs could provide support for the

19
child forums, however, in all the places visited NGOs mentioned that they are not invited to
participate in the child forums. As a matter of fact, the children from one visited site
mentioned that they feel more confortable working with the Bappeda and the local Women
Empowerment Agency rather than with NGOs that exist in the city.
In a mapping of child participation in Indonesia (UNICEF Indonesia and KPPPA, Jan
2013) the analysis of the field data showed that half of the children have not yet realized
and understood their participation rights, what is somehow connected to the lack of
funding for the initiative16. In the sites visited for the Child Friendly assessment, some
forums have the support of Bappeda or local Women Empowerment agency, and they have
a small budget to allocate to activities.
The analysis of the research team for this assessment corroborates to the reasons
that were mentioned by the 2013 UNICEF study (UNICEF Indonesia and KPPPA, Jan 2013)
as factors that hinder children participation in the country. Among them are (i) health
problems; (ii) child involvement with drugs; (iii) lack of budget for child forums (indicating,
according to the study, absence of government attention); (iv) lack of understanding by the
children on the importance of their participation; (v) small support from families and
members of the community to promote child participation; and (vi) lack of support from the
central government, among others.

3.4 The local action plan on CFC/D

The four sites visited during the fieldwork use the list of indicators set by the
Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection (Annex 3) as their guidance for the
child friendly initiative. The cities, districts and villages called the list of indicators as their
CFC/D Action Plan. These sites did not develop a separate or new plan for implementing the
CFC/D initiative.
As mentioned before, in general, the Bappeda does the coordination of the CF
initiative and, consequently, the coordination of the action plan in the sites vised. One
exception was in Poliwali Mandar where Bappeda accompanied the process, but as the child
friendly initiative was implemented at village level, the Head of the Village (Kapala Desa)
monitored the action plan17. In all sites visited, the development of the action plan did not
directly involve children. It is more common that the Mayor or the Bubati uses decrees to
set the list of indicators as action plan for the city or district.
All the visited sites made their action plans (list of indicators) available for the
research team in hard copies. The action plans were not available in the Internet, and
seemed not to be known by the population as a planning tool for children issues. In one of
the sites visited, when talking with a teacher – from a child friendly school – about the CF
initiative and the action plan, she mentioned not knowing either of them. The same
happened with a health professional who was aware of the existence of a health action plan
for the city/district, but did not know that the city/district was part of the child friendly
initiative, nor that the city/district had a plan that would combine actions from different
areas.

16
The mapping is a very comprehensive work on the history of child participation, and the justification
behind emphasizing child participation in the society.
17
The interviews in Balikpapan did not confirm Bappeda’s role in the child friendly city process.

20
 When asked about monitoring the action plan, and subsequently updates on it, the
process seems very familiar in all the visited sites. According to the interviews, indicators
are collected at every 4 months, and results are presented in Task Force meetings. These
meetings do not lead to changes in the indicators, and, consequently, to changes in the
action plans of the visited sites.
While the list of indicators can be considered a step closer to results based
management, the sites do not have unified plans that (i) describe a proper theory of change
that is expected with the initiative; (ii) set the strategy; (iii) define clear roles and
accountabilities for those involved; (iv) connect the actions; and (v) set the targets and
indicators, among other results based principles.

3.5 CFC/D Indicators & Data Management System

The list of 31 indicators is the heart and soul of the Child Friendly Initiative in
Indonesia. This list is the guidance for the actions, and, as mentioned, is used as the action
plan for the visited sites. It is also the basis for the reports that the cities and district send to
the yearly evaluation that ranks the participants into the five categories.
Despite the fact that all the visited sites took the indicators very seriously, the
research team found some inconsistencies in the use of the indicators by the villages,
districts and cities. These inconsistencies were related mainly to (i) the use of different
indicators, and the (ii) overall quality of the reported indicators.
In all the visited sites, the research team found that the last monitoring report sent
by the city or district used indicators different from the original list. Annex 3 presents a
table comparing the original indicators listed in the Ministerial Decree and the ones used
and reported by the visited sites. The difference between the original suggested indicators
and those used by the cities and districts is not entirely bad. Cities and Districts had the
initiative to adapt their indicators to their reality, and to add new ones that they considered
necessary to monitor. The problem exists when the lack of consistency puts in risk the
comparison among cities, helping to create inconsistencies in the overall initiative, and,
consequently, creating possible criticisms to the reliability of the results. One of the
objectives of having a common set of indicators is to have a common ground for
comparison in areas that are considered essential for children, allowing for a better overall
analysis of problems and solutions.
According to the interviews, the local changes to the original list of indicators
happened due to two main factors: first, the indicator did not exist at local level – meaning
that it was not being collected by the local government, and showing a possible lack of
structure or local capacity to properly collect the data. Second, the indicator did not reflect
the reality of the locality, making local government to report another similar indicator,
and/or to add completely new ones. In both cases, there is a need to the Ministry of Women
Empowerment and Child Protection to evaluate the list and to change how the indicators fit
into the overall initiative. The evidence also points to the fact that most of the cities and
districts did not understand the indicators, and they reported what they think was
appropriate.
The quality of indicators in the Child Friendly initiative is directly connected to the
overall characteristics of the indicators and data management systems in the country. This
quality is affected by the decentralization system that is adopted in Indonesia, influencing
not only how policies are implemented, but also how data at local level is collected, treated
and used. The report from the Ministry of Health (Centre for Data and Information / Ministry
of Health of Indonesia, 2007) mentions that the implementation of Decentralisation in 2001
has affected the information flow or reporting system from District/City to Province level.

21
This reporting system is considered as voluntary; therefore it is not continuous (p. 14). The
report also mentions the lack of personnel for data collection, and gaps in training for those
responsible for data collection and reporting.
The use of indicators for the child friendly initiative faces the same problem as other
indicators collected at local level to generate sub-national data. Haryana (2013) mentions
some challenges in terms of data collection for monitoring of projects funded by the
national government. According to him, while line ministers and provinces should report at
every four months, few actually do. In 2010, only 20% of the provinces submitted their
reports, and 30% of the line ministers did it on time. One of the main problems for these low
reporting rates were the difficulties in collecting and integrating M&E information from the
program implementers around the country. Another reason appointed by the author for the
low reporting is the reluctance of the Line Ministries – and province governors – to submit
their reports, as there was neither punishment nor rewards for delivering them18. This
analysis also represents how low reporting, bad data quality, and lack of indicators affect
the CFC/D initiative.
In another analysis, Boothby and others (Boothby, Stark, Simmons, & Chu, 2009)
mentioned that the data collection methods for the area of child protection relies on district
government offices and NGOs, and planning problems in their collection jeopardizes
routine data collection. As a matter of fact, according to the interviews with CFC/D
stakeholders, the indicators related to child protection are the hardest ones to be
understood, collected and analysed. Two problems in Boothby study have direct relation
with the CFC/D issues: One is the amount of child protection data that goes “undetected.” A
second problem is the collection and transfer of information from community to district-
province levels that relies heavily on paper records.
Data collection in Indonesia is decentralized at city and district levels, which also
decentralize the responsibility for their village levels. At the end, the technical expertise of
those collecting and reporting the data is not known, and the quality of the indicator at
lower levels cannot be guaranteed. Consequently, the data collection process for the CFC
initiative suffers from the same problem described by Boothby et al (Boothby, Stark,
Simmons, & Chu, 2009) when analysing child protection information:
“When child protection information is captured within the formal data
structures, there are numerous pathways through which data are transferred in
the existing information system. The process of decentralization, and the
subsequent autonomy that decentralization has provided to provincial and
district-level child protection actors, has increased the complexity of data
coordination between national and sub-national government ministries.
Depending on the function of the government ministry, the structure, capacity
and mandate of the ministry may differ at the provincial and district levels. As a
result, the quality and delivery of the data that national-level government
ministries receive from their provincial and local-level partners varies from one
ministry to the next.” (p. 32)
The indicators from the cities and districts that participate in the CFC/D initiative
are sent every year to Jakarta. According to the interviews, besides a document that
contains the basic information required for each indicator, cities and districts also send the
annexes to guarantee the validity of the information being provided. The issue with this

18
According to Haryana, BAPPENAS has developed an online system to monitor project
implementation. The system gives an overall idea of spending and implementation of projects/activities, but
does not advances in monitoring indicators.

22
system is that the annexes often surpass hundreds of pages for each city or village. The
annexes are, most of the times, extremely detailed. It is frequent to have lists of names of
beneficiaries in the annexes as proof that the city has fulfilled the obligation with a specific
indicator. While the annexes were supposed to guarantee that the indicator was correct,
the current system creates a burden to the cities and districts that participate in the CFC/D
initiative, and to the national evaluation team that has no time to check all the information
that is provided to them.
There is no integrated data management system for the child friendly initiative in
Indonesia. The indicators collected by the cities and districts are not available in an
organized system that allows people to search for them, and to compare cities and districts
among themselves and between two or more points in time. The lack of an organized
database where the indicators from the cities and districts could be consulted and
compared also creates doubts about the transparency and reliability of the initiative.

3.6 Evaluation Process

Currently, the evaluation for the cities and districts that participate at the CF
initiative happens yearly. A team of 13 members from different backgrounds and from
outside the government was responsible for the last evaluation. The idea was that this team
should look at the indicators horizontally – comparing the city/district only to itself in two
different points in time, and not to other similar sites. Besides, each team member was
supposed to visit three places that participated in the process to validate the information.
During the fieldwork for this assessment, some interviewees at local level did not remember
receiving the visit of the evaluation team. Validation of the data sent in the reports also
seemed to happen in Jakarta, when representatives from the cities/districts were invited to
participate in meetings, and when extra information was demanded to the cities and
districts.
On the evaluators’ point of view, the evaluation process is extremely complicated.
One of the reasons is the fact that the indicators can be interpreted in different forms,
allowing different cities to misinterpret them, and, consequently, to report different
information than the one intended for the indicator (section 3.4 of this report). Hence,
taking the last evaluation process as example, for each place that was part of the
evaluation, the evaluator had to try to understand what the city was presenting in each of
their indicators. Moreover, the evaluators themselves would have their own interpretation
of the indicators, and different evaluators would score the same city/district with
completely contradictory scores. At the end, for each city/districts, inconsistent scores had
to be discussed and a common ground had to be reached. The annexes that came with the
indicators were not always helpful since they presented a large quantity of information that
did not add quality to the process.
Hence, the perception of the evaluator was the main factor what guided him/her on
scoring the indicators. The focus of the evaluation was more on the qualitative performance
of the cities and districts, based on their own reports, rather than in the quantitative
analysis of indicators. Due to the lack of available recent data for city/district level
indicators, a comparison of the CFC/D indicators with others indicators not used in the
initiative for the cities and districts was not possible. The most recent data available at city
and district levels, and organized in a way that could be used for different comparisons,
were from 2010, 2011, representing only the baseline for the cities and districts of the
country.

23
 One of the commons criticisms of the child friendly initiative in Indonesia – and also
in other countries – is how some cities and districts that present so many problems and
violations related to children can call themselves “child friendly”. That criticism is further
emphasized when the initiative presents gaps in not having a system where people from
outside the initiative are able to see the city/district’s indicators (item 3.4), and by the fact
that the methodology for the initiative is not well known. The research team for this
assessment could not find a unique database with all the cities and districts that participate
in the child friendly process, and their reported indicators.
One of the common observations during the interviews was that cities and districts
did not know why they were ranked in one group and not the other. Also, the cities and
districts that participated in the initiative did not receive any official feedback from the
Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection on which aspects they needed to
improve in order to be better ranked. In a process like the Child Friendly, where
cities/districts are somehow judged, the feedback of what is working and what is not
working is fundamental to keep the initiative alive, for bringing new cities and districts to
the initiative, and for allowing the participants to effectively improve their services for boys
and girls.

3.7 Sustainability of the initiative

One of the main problems with the child friendly process current in place is the
high turnover of strategic people for the CFC/D initiative in the local governments. In all
sites visited, several people trained in the initiative in 2010/2011 (or even before that) were
not in government anymore, or were moved to other areas with no connection to the
Child Friendly City/District.
Despite the fact that in most of the places the initiative is encompassed in the
mid-term city /district plan, if a local leadership does not take it as priority, there is a risk
that the initiative is not going to move forward. In this sense, there is a very strong link
between the sustainability of the initiative and the political decision at city and district
level. In all sites visited, it was clear that the major stakeholder in the initiative was the
Mayor/Bupati, and without his/her commitment, the initiative was not going to develop.
At the same time that local government commitment with the CFC/D initiative seemed
high, the research team found no evidence of major participation from civil society, and
organized groups from outside the government. The participation of these groups can
increase the chances sustainability of the CFC/D initiative since they can work with new
governments and new staff in keeping the initiative alive.
During the interviews there was a constant demand from the local government for
more resources for the CFC/D initiative, including training, financial resources (allocation
of budgetary funds) and equipment. Besides the resources, the analysis of data collected
in the field visits indicated a high demand for a more constant presence of the Ministry of
Women Empowerment and Child Protection in the localities. That demand for higher
presence reflects the lack of feedback from the Ministry to the cities and districts. It seems
that the feedback happened when the city/district contacted the Ministry; however, if the
objective is to boost the CFC/D initiative, this feedback should be part of the process, and
almost automatic at certain point in time.

24
4. Lessons Learn
The main lessons learned from the current child friendly city/district initiatives in
Indonesia are the following:
 The longevity of the child forum and the guaranteeing of participation of
children are connected to the availability of facilitators. Facilitators help in
improving the quality of the debate, organizing the meetings, and
motivating the participation of children.
 The engagement and ownership of high levels officials, starting with the
Mayor/Bupati is essential for the continuity of the Child Friendly initiative
at local level.
 Continuity for the CF strategy at local level is also guarantee when the
initiative is added to the city/district RAD.
 The main contribution of the CFC/D initiative is to make different
governmental areas to discuss crosscutting issues, and to find solutions for
them that are also constructed in a way that different sectors have the
opportunity to participate.
 In terms of sustainability, Surakarta (Solo) has adopted a mechanism to
guarantee that the initiative does not change radically once changes in
government happen. The city tries to divide the responsibility into three
stakeholders: Bappeda, Bapermas and Mayor office. This way, if changes
occur, the other actors can work with the new stakeholder to guarantee
that the initiative can continue.

25
5. Conclusions
The Child Friendly City/District initiative is a strategy, a framework that has as main
objective to bring together activities from different areas such as health, education,
protection, etc. and make them have a common plan of action that, if implemented
correctly, would generate positive changes for children. The CFC/D does not necessarily
implement policies or actions with beneficiaries – maybe one exception in Indonesia is the
creation and strengthening of the child forum. In this sense, results for the Initiative must
be seen under two different angles: (i) the result of the original strategy, and (ii) the
results in the realization of children’s rights. In theory, the first one would impact in the
second.
As described in this assessment, the CFC/D initiative at local level has being
facilitating the interaction among different areas of the government. According to the
interviews, the Task Force that coordinates the initiative is an opportunity for different
agencies to interact, to learn about each other projects, to discuss issues, and to develop
common policies and projects to be implemented in the cities. The field visit shown some
examples of projects that were facilitated by the CFC/D initiative, and whose results are,
according to the interviewees, related to the child friendly strategy. Among them are: (i) the
increase of child friendly schools; (ii) the development of new social protection policies at
local level; (iii) the development of new strategies to reduce school dropouts; and (iv) the
creation of new forums for child participation. On a more strict analysis, it is impossible to
know if these strategies and actions would happen without the CFC/D initiative. One fact is
clear: they were expedited by the fact that the city or district is part of the CFC/D.
The coordination mechanism at local level, the strengthening of child participation,
and the use of a common strategy based on the 31 indicators (action plan) seem to be the
biggest achievements of the strategy; however, they all need improvements to guarantee
that results for children are facilitated (please refer to the recommendation part of this
report). The coordination mechanism is too cantered in government. The use of the 31
indicators as basis for the development of actions was a good strategy; however, as seen in
the findings and in the recommendations sections, changes are necessary to make the
process smoother and more intuitive. Child participation happens facilitated by the
initiative; however, the research team does not have enough evidence to affirm that they
involved younger children, and the most vulnerable ones.
In terms of improvements in children’s rights and reduction of disparities since the
beginning of the CFC/D implementation, concrete results cannot be solely attributed to the
CFCD initiative. For example, one of the sites visited mentioned that since the beginning of
the CFC/D, violence against children has been reduced. Without a proper evaluation of the
initiative – that is only possible in a couple of year from now – this affirmation does not
hold. This reduction might be the result of a newer policy being implemented in the
city/district, and not the result of the CFC/D initiative. However, the new policy might have
been influenced by the debate that happened in the Task Force, or might have been the
result of the discussions that happened there. In this sense, direct causality between the
CFC/D initiative and concrete results for children are not straightforwardly identifiable. The
research team heard similar results attributed to the initiative, including change in
behaviour, improvement in school quality, and increase in participation. All these cannot be
directly and solely attributed to the CFC/D initiative, at least, not at this moment.
The CFC/D strategy being assessed in this work is new. It is totally feasible that the
coordination mechanism and the action plan have generated or facilitated actions by
different actors, but these were not implemented yet, or they have not generated results. It
is important to remember that even the indicators reported by the cities and districts have a

26
time gap, and some of them might not reflect possible changes that might have been
facilitated by the CFC/D.
The research team tried to compare a set of indicators between those cities and
districts that are part of the initiative, with others that are not, trying to search for possible
causal associations. Unfortunately, the only data available from the Central Statistics Office
at city and district levels are from before the start of the CFC/D in the country. This data is a
very good baseline for a future comparison among cities and districts. In the future, similar
data will allow the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection to proper
compare different sites, analysing possible causalities, and trying to identify direct influence
of the initiative in the cities.
There is also a need to investigate further why the CFC/D is not being fully adopted
in the country. Some possible reasons were raised by the interviewees, and by the analysis
of the research team. Among them: (i) the cities and districts do not identify the benefit of
participate in such a process; (ii) there are no direct and indirect incentives for their
participation; (iii) local level government does not understand well the initiative; and (iv)
cities and districts that are not part do not trust the process. These are all suppositions and,
as mentioned, demand another type of study with a different group of sites to be visited.
Maybe the strongest criticism to the CFC/D initiative in Indonesia, and all over the
world, is related to the scepticism of some when sites that have some many child rights not
being realized call themselves “child friendly”. Besides, in Indonesia, the lack of a more
transparent process, the absence of unified data about the participants’ cities and districts,
and the absence of feedback to the participants, create serious doubts about the
trustworthiness of the initiative. These problems, discussed along this report are not
impossible to be solved, and depend almost exclusively on how the Ministry of Women
Empowerment and Child Protection sees this initiative as a priority.

27
6. Recommendations
Coordination Mechanism
Rec. 1: The option of having a dedicated Task Force or use one that already exists
seems to be correct. The issues found with the coordination mechanism were related to the
need of a stronger participation of children, adolescents and NGOs on the different
mechanisms. Hence, it is recommended that at least once at every six months, a meeting of
the Task Force should take place in a time that is not prohibitive for children. For these
meetings, children that are part of the Child Forum should participate – not only the
facilitators but also the children. One suggestion could be that the Task Force meets at one
of the schools of the city/district/village, creating the possibility for children to be heard. In
the same line, the initiative should guarantee that representatives of NGOs participate and
are empowered to suggest public policies for children.
Rec. 2: The Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection should
maintain and make available a list of focus points for the initiative. Today, it is not possible
to identify who are the responsible for the CFC/D initiative at city and district levels.

Child Participation
Rec. 3: Despite the fact that most visited places have active Child Forums, and
other forms of child participation, the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child
Protection should try to guarantee the involvement of younger children in some of the
meetings. Trained facilitators should guide this participation so the younger children can
participate in discussions that are appropriate for their age. The objective is to start getting
them ready to participate in the decision making process in their communities.
In the same line, the Child Friendly Initiative should guarantee the participation of
the most vulnerable children, including those with disabilities. The existing Child Forums
could be used to identify the most vulnerable children in their communities and to bring
them to the meetings.
Rec. 4: The use of facilitators has proven to be very effective in the child forums. In
this sense, the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection should allocate
resources for training new and current facilitators for the forums. The use of facilitators and
the development of their capacity should be considered continuous processes. Possible
facilitators are volunteers from NGOs, teachers, and members of the community. A manual
on child forum/child participation could be developed to train facilitators, and to suggest
activities to be developed in the child forums, and other spaces that are constructed to
highlight child participation.

Indicators and Data Management System

Rec.5: The Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection should change
how indicators are used in the initiative; adapting the CFC/D language to a more results
based approach. The recommendation is to use a model similar to the Millennium

28
Development Goals (MDGs), where each area – amongst the existing six19 – has its own
targets to be reached by the city/district, and then, indicators are used to measure those
targets (Figure 4 depicts the overall idea for this recommendation). In this sense:
Goals would be created to correspond to the six existing areas.
Targets would be the same for all the cities and districts, and would be based on the
national targets. For example, a target in the area of education could be “By 2016, increase
by 50% the number of child friendly schools”. In the area of Basic Health and Welfare could
be “By 2016, increase in 80% the number of houses with access to clean water”. These
targets should be constructed with representatives of other Line Ministries and should
reflect the national priorities of all areas involved in the CF initiative. The baseline of each
city/district would set the final target to be achieved. If one city has a baseline of 10 child
friendly schools, its target would be by 2016 reaching 15. In another case, if a city has 30
child friendly schools, its target would be 45.
The indicators (see Rec 7) would be used to monitor the targets at yearly basis,
without the need of having the annexes (see Rec. 9), and at the end of the cycle they would
be also used to the evaluation of the cities and districts. The list of final indicators would
depend on the targets to be selected.
Figure 4: Connection Goals, Targets and Indicators

Indicator 1.1
Target 1.A Indicator 1.2
Indicator 1.3

Goal 1

Indicator 1.4
Target 1.B Indicator 1.5

Rec. 6: The Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection should develop
guidance/manuals for the overall initiative, and each Goal, Target and Indicator (Rec. 5) in
order to avoid misunderstandings about them, and to guarantee the uniformity of the
initiative. The Ministry should work in close collaboration with other Line Ministries and the
Central Bureau of Statistics to construct the manuals.

Rec. 7: The indicators should be re-evaluated and they should be divided into two
groups: (i) indicators that are mandatory and cannot be adapted and changed [core
indicators]; (ii) indicators that aggregate to the first group, and have the possibility to be
adapted according to the reality of the city/district [adaptive indicators]. In creating two
sets of indicators the initiative is able to compare different cities and districts, if necessary,
and also increase the reliability of the initiative since the participants will have a unique
group of indicators to be judged. Besides, a third building block for the initiative should be

19
Institutional Strengthening and Child Rights, subdivided into: (i) Civil Rights & Freedom; (ii) Family
Environment and Alternative Care; (iii) Basic Health and Welfare; (iv) Education, Leisure and Culture; and (v)
Special Protection.

29
basic requirements that each city should have in order to participate in the process (Figure
5). For example, the existence of the Task Force, the child forum, and decrees at local level
should not be used as indicators, but as basics requirements for the city or district.
Figure 5: Proposed Groups of Indicators in the CFC/D initiative

Core Adaptive
Indicators Indicators

Basic Requirements

Some of the indicators, specially the ones from the second group could be
qualitative indicators where the city/district could collect and send to Jakarta. For example,
a form could be created by the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection to
be filled out during the participation of children in the Task Force (see Rec. 2). At the end of
the 2-year process (Rec. 9) the city/district could upload this form on the data management
system (Rec. 8) to start the evaluation process. The use of qualitative indicators to be
collected by the population is frequently used in the child friendly initiative implemented in
Brazil (see Annex 7 for more details).
Rec. 8: The Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection should
facilitate the development of an online system where cities and districts could update their
indicators and upload annexes, when necessary. With today’s technology a system would
be relatively simple to develop and would allow the information to be easily available for
those that are not part of the initiative, increasing transparency and the efficiency of the
process. At city/district level, managers would have a unique password to access the system
and do the updates. An online system would also reduce the inconsistency of the indicators,
increasing the reliability of the process (see Rec. 5)

Evaluation:
Rec. 9: The yearly evaluation of the cities and districts is cumbersome, it is a burden
for them, and is not efficient to measure changes in some of the indicators. Furthermore, to
proper conduct evaluations at yearly basis, a dedicated team would be necessary to be
working constantly in evaluating the indicators and visiting the sites. At the present
moment, the evaluation of the cities/districts is done without the needed rigor, and without
the necessary feedback to the participants. In that sense, the recommendation would be
to restructure the process to expand the initiative to a two-year cycle20. At the end of the
first year the cities/districts would only updated the indicators (see Rec. 8), without the
annexes. At the second year, the cities/districts would update the indicators, plus upload
some annexes in the system. The indicators would still be the basis for the evaluation, but
the evaluation team would have more time to measure advances in terms of targets and
goals for the cities and districts (Figure 6).

20
A longer time (3 or 4 years) is also possible, as long as constant monitoring of the indicators and
feedback to the cities and districts is performed.

30
 Figure 6: Proposed times for monitoring indicators and possible results

Indicator 1.1
Target 1.A Indicator 1.2
Indicator 1.3

Goal 1

Indicator 1.4
Target 1.B Indicator 1.5

Yearly
Two Year Evaluation
Monitoring

Rec. 10: The initiative should have as one of its objectives to identify the subjects
where the cities and districts have to advance more, and provide them with feedback. As
one of the interviewees mentioned: the focus of the initiative should be on improving the
worst off areas, not only in recognizing the best ones. In that sense, the feedback for the
cities and districts is essential and should be done as soon as the monitoring process is
completed, and when the evaluation is finalized. The Ministry of Women Empowerment
and Child Protection should also inform other Line Ministries about the results, and the
possible areas that were identified as necessary for improvement.

Sustainability of the initiative

Rec. 11: The Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection should be
more present in those cities and districts that are part of the initiative, guaranteeing
constant training for those involved in the government, and should also be in those that are
not part, but might be interested. With today’s technology, the Ministry should organize
online trainings and workshops to motivate the cities and districts, and to keep the capacity
building at local levels. In the same line, in those places that are not in the CFC/D process,
the presence of representatives of the Ministry can create the curiosity about the process,
and increase the engagement on it. In this sense, there is a need to strength the internal
and external communication component of the CFC/D initiative.
Rec. 12: Most of actors with active presence in the initiative are from the central
and local governments. The Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection should
engage other institutions outside the government to be part of the initiative, at national
and local levels. For example, as suggested by Boothby and others (Boothby, Stark,
Simmons, & Chu, 2009), a long-term engagement of universities and research centres
could work in all the phases of the child friendly city/district process; helping in the
sustainability of the initiative, transferring knowledge and technologies to the local
government, and using the information to perform studies and analysis. Besides, a higher
external presence would also improve the transparency of the CFC/D strategy, and
increasing its reliability.

31
 Rec. 13: As mentioned in the findings section of this document, the initiative is
sometimes criticized because cities and districts that still have many child rights’ problems
start calling themselves “Child Friendly”. In order to avoid that, a new branding should be
developed for the initiative. A simple solution would be to change the name of it, and start
using that the city/district is “Working towards becoming a Child Friendly City/District”.
This is a simple way to recognize that the site still needs to improve the policies and
actions for children. Besides, a strong communication campaign should be done before
the initiative cycle begins, and after it ends (Rec. 9). Much of similar child friendly
initiatives around the world are successful because they create incentives to cities to
engage and keep participating. Much of these incentives are related to communication,
i.e., campaigns that portrait the advantages of being a child friendly city, and the
recognition of those cities that achieve this status.
Rec. 14: In line with Rec. 13, the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child
Protection should work closer to the cities and districts, guaranteeing that the use of the
expression “child friendly” has a supervision and agreement from the Ministry, avoiding the
expression to be used without the endorsement from the Ministry. This creates uniformity
in the initiative and acts as a quality control mechanism.

32
Annexes
Annex 1: MDG Overview for Indonesia
MDG Country Progress Snapshot: Indonesia Last update: Dec. 2013

Percent‐ Region Latest Data:

First Year Latest Year Country Progress
Goals and Targets Indicators age South‐eastern Asia
Change
Value Year Value Year Level 1/ Chart Value Year

Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger

60
40
Reduce extreme poverty Proportion of population living 20
54.3 1990 18.1 2010 ‐67 high poverty 14.3 2010
by half below $1.25 (PPP) per day (%) 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Proportion of population below 25

moderately low 20
Reduce hunger by half minimum level of dietary energy 22.2 1991 9.1 2012 ‐59 15 17.8 2010‐2012
hunger 10
consumption (%) 5
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education

100
Net enrolment ratio in primary 80
Universal primary 60
education (enrolees per 100 94.6 1990 99.0 2011 5 high enrollment 40 95.6 2011
schooling 20
children) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women

1.05

Equal girls' enrolment in Ratio of girls to boys in primary 0.85

0.96 1990 1.02 2011 6 parity 0.65 0.99 2011
primary school education
0.45
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

33
 40
Share of women in wage 30
Women's share of paid 20
employment in the non‐ 29.2 1990 32.9 2010 13 medium share 10
38.6 2011
employment
agricultural sector (%) 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

2500
Women's equal Proportion of seats held by 2000
low 1500
representation in women in national parliament 12.4 1990 18.6 2013 50 1000 18.0 2013
representation 500
national parliaments (single or lower house only ‐ %) 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

100
Reduce mortality of 80
Under‐five morality rate (deaths 60
under‐five‐year‐old by 83.8 1990 31.0 2012 ‐63 low mortality 40 28 2012
of children per 1,000 births) 20
two thirds 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal 5: Improve maternal health

800
Reduce maternal Maternal mortality ratio 600
400
mortality by three (maternal deaths per 100,000 600 1990 220 2010 ‐63 high mortality 200 150 2010
0
quarters live births) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Contraceptive prevalence rate 80

60
(percentage of women aged 15‐ 40
49.7 1991 61.9 2012 25 20 62.9 2011
49, married or in union, using 0
moderate 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
contraception)
Access to universal access to
reproductive health reproductive
Unmet need for family planning 20
health 15
(percentage of women aged 15‐ 10
17.0 1991 11.4 2012 ‐33 5 12.8 2011
49, married or in union, with 0

unmet need for family planning) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

34
MDG Country Progress Snapshot: Indonesia Last update: Dec. 2013

Percent‐ Region Latest Data:

First Year Latest Year Country Progress
Goals and Targets Indicators age South‐eastern Asia
Change
Value Year Value Year Level 1/ Chart Value Year

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

0.06
Halt and begin to HIV incidence rate (number of 0.04
reverse the spread of new HIV infections per year per 0.01 2001 0.04 2011 300 low incidence 0.02 0.03 2011
HIV/AIDS 100 people aged 15‐49) 0.00
1990 1995 2000 2005

Number of 300

new cases per 200

206 1990 187 2011 ‐9 100 210 2011

Incidence rate 100,000 0

Halt and reverse spread and death rate population 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

low mortality
of tuberculosis associated with Number of 80

tuberculosis deaths per

60
40
53.0 1990 27.0 2011 ‐49 20 28 2011
100,000 0
population 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

80
60
Proportion of land area covered high forest 40
Reverse loss of forests 65.4 1990 52.1 2010 ‐20 49.3 2010
by forest (%) cover 20
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

100
Halve proportion Proportion of population using
moderate 50
without improved an improved drinking water 69.8 1990 84.3 2011 21 89.0 2011
coverage 0
drinking water source (%) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

80
Proportion of population using 60
Halve proportion 40
an improved sanitation facility 35.3 1990 58.7 2011 66 low coverage 20
71.0 2011
without sanitation
(%) 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

35
 60
moderate 40
Improve the lives of Proportion of urban population
50.8 1990 23.0 2009 ‐55 proportion of 20 31.0 2012
slum‐dwellers living in slums (%) 0
slum‐dwellers 1990 1995 2000 2005

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development

15
10
Internet users per 100
Internet users 0.0 1990 15.4 2012 ‐ moderate usage 5 23.6 2011
inhabitants 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

The MDG Country Progress Snapshot provides an overview of the progress achieved at country level since 1990 towards the Millennium Development Goals. The
snapshot is intended mainly to provide the international community easy access to the information and are not meant to replace in any way the country profiles
produced at the national level in several countries. They are also meant to reflect the contribution of country‐level progress to the global and regional trends on
progress towards the MDGs.
The data used in the snapshot are from the MDG global database (http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx). The metadata and responsible agencies can be found on
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx. Sources of discrepancies between global and national figures are due to, among others, different methodology and
definitions or different choice of data sources. At the global level, the monitoring of the progress aims to ensure better comparability of data among countries. Country
can contact the responsible agencies for resolving data discrepancies.
Note: 1) The country progress level indicates the present degree of compliance with the target based on the latest available data. The technical note on the progress
level can be found at http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2012/technicalnote.pdf .

36
Annex 2: Summarized Agenda and Interviewees during Field Trips
Surakarta/Solo
1. Meeting with Bappeda team :
- Head of Bappeda : Agus Joko Witiarso
- Social and Culture Division Head-Bappeda : Enny Rosana
- Bappeda staff: Ari Yeppy Kusumawati
- CFO UNICEF Java : I Made Sutama

2. Meeting with Mayor of Solo :

- Mayor of Solo : FX Hadi Rudyatmo
- Head of Bappeda: Agus Joko Witiarso
- Head of Bappermas: Anung Indro Susanto
- Head of Population and Civ Registration: Suwarto
- Expert team of Mayor : Widdi Srihanto
- Cooporation Division Head-Mayor Office: Jonny Hari Sumantri
- Social and Culture Division Head-Bappeda : Enny Rosana
- Bappeda staff: Ari Yeppy Kusumawati
- CFO UNICEF Java : I Made Sutama

3. Meeting with Task Force team-Bappeda Office:

- Led by Head of Bappeda and CFO UNICEF Java
- Atended by 37 members of Task Force team, consist of : Bappeda team, CFC technical advisor, 3
local NGOs, Police officer, Probition Office, Penitential Office, Academician/ University
Research team, Bappermas team, Social Welfare Office, Education Office, Transportationand
Communication Office, Archive Office, Religion Affairs, Child Forum Committe with facilitators,
CP SBA facilitators

4. Meeting with Bappermas team :

- Head of Bappermas: Anung Indro Susanto
- Child Protection Division Head-Bapermas: Pratiwi and her staf Siti
- CFO UNICEF Java : I Made Sutama

5. Visit to Village Integrated Service Center for Victims of Violence (PPT) at Jebres, met and
discussed with Head of Village and Head of PPT

6. Visit to Child Center (Taman Cerdas) Mojo Songo Village: met and discussed with coordinators
and committe members

7. Visit to Pre-school Al Firdaus Solo: discussed with teachers team and exposed 12 learning stations

8. Visit to Elementary School no. 15 Solo: discussed with headmaster and teachers, exposed school
facilities, and interacted with students

9. Visit to Private Hospital in Solo : discussed about mechanism on birth registration and studied the
online registration with person in charge

37
10. Visit to private community health center/ maternal and delivery clinic: discussed about
mechanism on birth registration with person in charge

11. Visit to Public Community health center in Manahan: discussed with doctor and the team, and
exposed child friendly facilitaties

12. Visit to Lactation room at Train station Balapan: interacted with in-charge midwife

13. Discussion with Solo Child Forum : observing Forum’s meeting, interacted with 14 committe
members and their 4 facilitators, interviewed with 2 members, atended by Siti from Bapermas and
CFO UNICEF Java

Poliwali Mandar
1. Bappeda office - Meeting with Bappeda team :
- Head of Bappeda : Kallang
- Social and Culture Division Head-Bappeda : Agustiani
- Bappeda staff: Aco
- CP Staff -UNICEF South Sulawesi: Tria Amelia

2. Bupati office - Meeting with Bupati of Poliwali Mandar :

- Bupati of Poliwali : Ibrahim
- Head of Bappeda: Kallang
- Social and Culture Division Head-Bappeda : Agustiani
- CP Staff -UNICEF South Sulawesi: Tria Amelia

3. Bupati Office - Meeting with relevant sectors and village representation:

- Bupati’s assistant (Darwin Badaruddin) and the head of Women Empowerment office (Hartini),
atended by 22participants, consist of : Bappeda team, BKKBPP team, CFC initiator and
facilitators, village head from 2 pilot child friendly Villages, academician (Mandar Institute),
Social Welfare Office, Education, Youth and Sport Office, Child Forum Committe from 2 villages

4. Visit to Papandanga Village, pilot model community based child friendly village, accompanied
by Agustiani and Aco (Bappeda) and Harsani (BKKBPP), met and discussed with Head of Village,
interaction with child fórum, visiting community based pre-school, and interaction with teacher and
student of Papandanga elementary school

Aceh Besar

1. Bappeda office - Meeting with Bappeda team :

- Head of Bappeda : Surya Yarendra
- Vice head of Bappeda: Zakariah
- Social and Culture Division Head-Bappeda : Akhi Hasanuddin
- Visited Data and Info center (Bappeda office), explained by Zakariah

2. BKSPPPA Office - Meeting with head of BKSPPPA and his team:

- Head of BKSPPPA : Fandi

38
 - Secretary : Marzuki
- CFD focal point : Irna
- Akhi Hasanuddin (Bappeda)

3. Junior High School – Peukan Bada, child friendly school model, met and discussed with
head master, Muhardi, accompanied by Akhi Hasanuddin (Bappeda) and Irna (BKSPPPA),
also consult with a member of child fórum of Ajun village and 2 students fórum

4. Community Center, Lamlumpu Village : 1 of 6 pilot child friendly village, met with child
fórum committee.

Balikpapan

1. Meeting with Balikpapan Child Forum

- Pandu Wicaksono ; Previous CF chairperson
- Ade Mansoer:
- Ridho

2. Consultative meetings with BPMPP&KB, Bappeda, Health office, and atended by

provincial women empowerment body who came down from Samarinda the capital
- Provincial women empowerment : Ardiningsih (head) and her 2 staff
- Balikpapan BPMPP&KB: Pratitis (secretary), Santi (CP división head) , and 2 staff
- Social and Culture Division Head-Bappeda : Pranti Firdaus
- Health office: Sri Juliati
- 2 child forum committee: Ridho and Siti

3. Visit to child forum Balikpapan at community hall and library

- Pandu, Ade, Ridho, Siti, Agus

4. Visiting school that nominated for green generation award and child friendly school
- Headmater, teachers, students of Green generation team
- Pandu, Ade, Siti and evaluation team

39
Annex 3: List of Indicators
The table below compares the original indicators with those found in the visited sites. Blank spaces in the first column represent cases
where the city/district/village has added indicators to the original list.
Original Indicators
(Decree 12/2011)
(I) Institutional
strengthening indicators:
1. Existence of legislation and
policies for the fulfillment of
children's rights;
2. Percentage of the budget
for the fulfillment of
children's rights, including
the budget for institutional
strengthening;
3. Number of legislation,
policies, programs and
activities that receive input
from the Children's Forum
and other groups of
children;
4. Available human resources
(HR) CRC trained and able
to implement children's
rights into policies,
programs and activities;
5. Available child data
disaggregated by sex, age,
Solo
Interpreted by Solo in
Evaluation form
Same. Hierarchy of local
regulation: City regulation,
Mayor regulation, Mayor
instruction, Mayor decree,
and other initiatives/ Mayor
policies. Solo put list of other
related report at the end, such
as, modules, profile of Solo,
reports of workshops and
trainings, situation analysis of
mother and children,
Only actual amount per
cluster, not percentage
Same indicator, plus the
number of child forums
established but not mentioned
number of children involved in
every forum
Same, detail number provided
Same
Poliwali Mandar
Child Village Initiative
Existence of village regulation
for child protection and child
rights fulfillment
Available funds for child
protection and child rights
fulfillment in Village
development budget
Available social fund from
community for child protection
and child rights fulfillment
# of facilitator/ service
providers at school, health
center, ECD center trained on
child rights
Available child data
disaggregated by sex, age,
Aceh Besar
Same. Mentioned about
Bupati’s regulation on CFD
and all relevant regulations
and policies at District and
Province level
Only mentioned actual
amount per activities
allocated by every office, not
percentage
Same, plus # of child forums
established and # of children
involved in every forum
Same, mentioned # of
government staff trained
within a year
Same, the detail
disaggregated data is
Balikpapan
Same. Mentioned about all
relevant regulations, Mayor’s
decrees, and Mayor’s
circulars.
Only stated actual amount per
activities allocated by every
office, not percentage. Also
answered all questions from
Ministerial guideline
Same, and stated # of child
forum established
Same, by answering
questions from Ministerial
guideline
No data presented
40
 Original Indicators
(Decree 12/2011)
and sub-districts;
6. Involvement of community
organizations in the
fulfillment of child rights
7. Involvement of the business
community in the fulfillment
of child rights
8.
9.
10.
11.
(II) Cluster of child rights
(five clusters):
II.1 Civil rights and liberties;
indicators:
1. Percentage of children who
registered and own birth
certificate;
2. Child-friendly facilities
available information;
Solo
Same, type and number
Same, type and # of support
but not explanation on the
sustainable support
Solo
Same, information is detailed
in attachment sent to Jakarta
Same, except no detail # of
child beneficiaries and per
facilities
Poliwali Mandar Aceh Besar Balikpapan
and school grade enclosed from BPS (statistic
management bureau) and
input into DevInfo program
under Bappeda
% village staff trained on child Same, type and # of child Same, mentioned all types of
rights beneficiaries community organization in
town but no data of child
beneficiaries
Involvement of children’s Same, type and # of support Same, mentioned all
groups that promote their but no names of companies/ companies that supported
participation and creativity community organization CFC program
(child forum)
Available child care groups
(adults)
Available contribution of
business community for child
growth, development and
protection
Available AL Quran class/
forum for children at sub-
village level
Village development plan
document contain pro
program and activities on
child protection and child
rights fulfillment
Poliwali Mandar Aceh Besar Balikpapan
Percentage of children own Same, mentioned percentage Mentioned total number of
birth certificate of girls and boys, detailed in children received birth
attachment certificates, no %
Available info media on child Same, except no detail # of Same, except no detail # of
protection and child right child beneficiaries and per child beneficiaries and per
fulfillment. facilities (detailed in attached facilities
document from every sector)
41
 Original Indicators
(Decree 12/2011)
3. Number of groups of
children, including the
Children's Forum, which are
present in the district / city
(II) Cluster of child rights
(five clusters):
II.2 Family environment and
alternative care
1. Percentage of first marriage
under the age of 18
(eighteen) years;
2. Agency consultations
available for parents /
families on parenting and
child care
3. Available child welfare
agencies.
4.
5.
(II) Cluster of child rights
(five clusters):
II.3 basic health and welfare
1. Infant Mortality;
2. Prevalence of malnutrition
in children under five;
3. Percentage exclusive
breastfeeding (ASI);
4. Number of “Corners”
available for breastfeeding
Solo Poliwali Mandar
Same Not available
Solo Poliwali Mandar
Only number, no percentage Percentage of first marriage
under the age of 18
Same, detail with # of child Available village health center
beneficiaries that provide consultations on
parenting and child care
Same, detail with # of child # of poor families with under
beneficiaries 18 children who received
health insurance scheme from
national and District
Available ECD center with
holistic and integrative
approach
Available volunteer social
workers at village level trained
on child rights
Solo Poliwali
Same
Infant Mortality rate
Same
# of children have malnutrition
and severe malnutrition
Same # of mother with exclusive
breastfeeding.
Same # of breastfed mothers
practice early initiation on
Aceh Besar
Same, but not detailed
Aceh Besar
same, put percentage and
effort to reduce
Same, no available child
beneficiaries
Same, detail with # of child
beneficiaries
Aceh Besar
Same, mentioned the rate
with efforts to reduce
Same, number of cases and
explained mechanism to
respond and to prevent
Same, no percentage, only
name of program/activities
Same, no facilities yet
Balikpapan
Same, with detail # of child
committee members involved,
and names of program
organized by child forums
Balikpapan
No data available, only
mentioned ‘decrease’
Same, detail with # of child
beneficiaries
Same, detail with # of child
beneficiaries
Balikpapan
Same, with reason of death
Same, answering all
questions
Same, 100%
Same, mentioned detailed
places
42
 Original Indicators
(Decree 12/2011)
(breastfeeding space);
lactation room
5. Percentage children fully
immunized (basic
immunization - BCG, DPT 3
times, HB 3 times, 4 times
Polio, and Measles 1
times);
6. Number of agencies that
provide reproductive health
services and mental (incl.
counseling);
7. Number of children from
poor families with access to
improved welfare;
8. Percentage of households
with access to clean water
9. Smoking free areas
10.
(II) Cluster of child rights
(five clusters):
II.4 Education, use of leisure,
and cultural activities
1. Enrolment rates of early
childhood education;
2. The percentage of
compulsory education 12
(twelve) years;
3. Percentage of child-friendly
schools;
Solo Poliwali Mandar
breastfeeding
Same Percentage children fully
immunized
Same Available child and maternal
health post in every sub-
village
Same, detail Percentage children losing
weight within 3 consecutive
months
Same, minus efforts # of households with access
to clean water
Same, in public space/
Available Smoking free areas
facilities
Percentage certificate for
infant mortality
Solo Poliwali
Same, % over 100 Gross enrolment rate of ECE,
enrolment rate of ES, JHS,
SHS
Same, % over 100 Available budget for
playground and library for
children
Number of CFS, no % Available data of drop out
school children (EL, JHS,
SHS), available data of non-
attended school children or
non-continued high school
children
Aceh Besar
Same, mentioned percentage
Same, mentioned agencies
and # of cases handled
Same, mentioned name of
program and beneficiaries
Same, mentioned percentage
minus efforts
Same, mentioned # of public
space/ facilities
Aceh Besar
Same, no rate only # of
students and pre-schools
Same, no rate # of students
and schools
Number of CFS, no % only #
of schools and some policies
Balikpapan
Same, % and name of efforts
Same, mentioned agencies
only
Same, mentioned agencies
and # of child beneficiaries
Same, mentioned percentage
and efforts
Same, mentioned # of public
space/ facilities
Balikpapan
Same, # of pre-schools
Same, % per level
No %, only name of schools
with the initiative, and efforts
so far
43
 Original Indicators
(Decree 12/2011)
4. The number of schools that
have the programs,
facilities and infrastructure
child's travel to and from
school , and
5. Available facilities for
creative activities and kid-
friendly recreation, outside
of school, which is
accessible to all children.
Playgrounds and activities
for children.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
(II) Cluster of child rights
(five clusters):
II. 5 Special protection
1. Percentage of children who
require special protection
and services;
Solo Poliwali Mandar Aceh Besar Balikpapan
Same # school with child friendly Same, mentioned # of Same, mentioned # of
school program schools and efforts schools and efforts especially
transportation (school bus)
Similar but double data with Curved time for studying for Mentioned name of program Mentioned name of program
indicator # 9 children from several from several
departments/offices departments/offices,
Available Village health post
with early detection service
for drug abuse by children
Available curriculum to
support talent development of
students
Available curriculum on child-
pro local culture and wisdoms
Available teachers recruited
from the respective village for
formal and non-formal
education
Available village team on anti-
drug movement
Routine socialization on the
risk of drug abuse and HIV /
AIDS from government and
law enforcers
Solo Poliwali Mandar Aceh Besar Balikpapan
Number of cases, not %. But Available save house in the Number of cases, not %. But 100% but no detail data
the requirement from Ministry village as integrated service the requirement from Ministry
only the numbers center for women only the numbers
44
 Original Indicators
(Decree 12/2011)
2. Percentage of cases of
children in conflict with the
law (ABH) is solved by the
approach of restorative
justice (restorative justice);
3. Disaster management
mechanism that takes into
account the interests of the
child, and
4. Percentage of children
involve in worst forms of
child labour.
Solo Poliwali Mandar Aceh Besar Balikpapan
empowerment and child
protection
Number of cases, not %. But Available special room in the Number of cases, not %. But No available data
the requirement from Ministry village for resolving conflict the requirement from Ministry
only the numbers involving children, for meeting only the numbers
the perpetrator and victim,
facilitator by parents, police,
social worker, local NGO,
women empowerment office
and social welfare office
Same Number of social worker or Same, mentioned activities Same, mentioned the
local NGO working with police and # of participants program
Same, detail Not reported No number, only explained 100% with no detailed data
the efforts
45
Annex 4: Core interview questions
National Government:
1. General Implementation:
 How is the Child friendly initiative being implemented in the country?
 How is UNICEF being part of this initiative?
 Is the competition a good strategy? Why?
 Who is in charge of deciding who is awarded and who is not?

2. Results:
 Did the Child friendly initiative contribute to changes for children? How?
Examples/evidences
 I read in a newspaper article that despite some cities were awarded as child friendly, the
Minister for Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection, said in July last year that
“no city in Indonesia can be described as a child friendly city”21. Why is that?
 How the initiative addresses inequality problems in terms of the most vulnerable
children/populations?

3. Lessons Learnt:
 What did it work in the initiative?
 What did not work in the initiative?
 Any lessons of what has to be adjusted in the future?

City Officials
1. Results for children:
 What has changed after the city has started participating in the child friendly initiative?
 Did it result in positive changes for children? How? Examples.
 How did the Child friendly initiative contributed to these changes?

2. Children Participation:
 Are children being consulted at regular basis? How do they participate?
 Is there a formal mechanism of consultation?
 When was the last time this mechanism was used?
 Can you give me an example of a process that children influence/participate in the
decision-making?

3. Action Plan:
 Are there local action plans for children (municipal/district plans)? In which areas?
 Do they have goals and targets?
 How do they fit into the national agenda?
 How was the strategy developed? Did it include children? How?

21
http://en.tempo.co/read/news/2013/07/24/055499454/Indonesia-Has-No-Child-Friendly-Cities-Minister-
Says Accessed Feb 26, 2013.

46
  Is the strategy available? Is it available on the Internet/printed?
 Does the Strategy cover all children in the city, with special attention to children who
may be socially excluded or marginalised? How?
 Did the city/district consider children in its city budget? How? Did children or other
groups participate in the development of the budget?
 How does the city keep track of the 28 indicators that are part of the initiative?
 Were the indicators used to help in the city plan? How?

4. Coordination Mechanism / Task Force:

 Is there a unit to coordinate the CFC initiative? Who is part of it? Is it constant? Who
coordinates?
 Does the local government support it? How?
 How is the interaction between the coordination mechanism and children?

5. UNICEF/Government support
 Who helped the city/district in the child friendly city initiative? How?
 Did city officials receive any training for the initiative? From whom? When? What type
of training?

6. Lessons Learnt:
 What did it work in the initiative?
 What did not work in the initiative?
 Any lessons of what has to be corrected in the future?

47
Annex 5: Main Governmental Actors Involved in the CFC/D
National Development Planning Board – Bappenas (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan
Nasional)
Bappenas’ role was set out through Presidential Decree No. 138 in 1999 to provide
oversight to a broad range of national development plans related to economic, infrastructure,
human resources, natural resources, development budgeting, and administration. Bappenas
oversees the allocation of cash and block grant funds as well as conducts evaluations of
programs at the national level. Nationally, the Bappenas does not have a significant role in the
Child Friendly Initiative. The Bappeda is the equivalent institution at province, city and district
levels.

The Ministry for Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection – KPPPA

KPPPA is the Ministry that holds the child friendly initiative in Indonesia. According to
Boothby and others (Boothby, Stark, Simmons, & Chu, 2009), the KPPPA does not participate
directly in service delivery, nor is it structured or mandated to do so. Instead this coordinating
body that facilitates policy development and implementation in areas of health, education,
social welfare, child development and child participation, collects secondary data on issues of
violence, abuse, trafficking and exploitation received from other agencies. The BPPPA or
equivalent names represents the Ministry of Women’s Empowerment and Child Protection at
local level (cities and districts).

Provincial, District and City Secretary – Sekda

The Secretariat has the main task to assist the Mayor/Bupati in performing the tasks of
governance, development, organization and policies, and provides administrative services to the
entire government agencies. Since KLA captures cross-sector works, the Secretary plays very
important roles in bridging the coordinative linkage among all related sectors under its
authority.

Regional, District and City Board for Planning and Development – Bappeda (Badan
Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah)
Bappeda has a large role in coordinating departments at their respective administrative
levels since funding is allocated from the national level to the local Bappeda office, which then
allocates funds to the relevant government partners. In the Child Friendly Initiative, the Head of
Bappeda is responsible for carrying out the coordination of the KLA Task Force. In administrative
terms, the Bappeda office is situated under the Mayor/Bupati’s office.

Regional, District and City Women Empowerment and Child Protection Body –- BPPPA (Badan
Pemberdayaan Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak) or other similar
nomenclatures, such as Bapermas PPPA and KB (Community empowerment, women
empowerment, child protection and family planning), or BKKB and PP (Coordination body for
family planning and women empowerment), or BKSPP & PA (Family Welfare, women
empowerment and child protection body)

48
 In those cities and districts that are part of the CFC/D initiative, the BPPPA or other
names in different cities/districts, functions as the secretariat of the KLA Task Force, coordinates
the meetings, and supports the Child Forums. In practical terms, the BPPPA office facilitates the
data collection for the indicators, which are submitted to the Bappeda office, which, with the
consent of the Mayor/Bupati, sends them to the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child
Protection.

49
Annex 6: Description of the Child Friendly Initiative in the sites visited

6.1 Surakarta (Solo)

Surakarta is a city located in the Central Java region, predominantly urban. The city was
selected as a pilot city for the Child Friendly initiative back in 2006, and has implementing the
CFC framework since them, with emphasis on the period post 2009. Until now, the city has 5
local regulations related to CFC, 11 Mayor’s regulations, 14 Mayor’s decrees, and 3
policies/initiatives. Additional 1 Mayor’s decree and 1 policy were adopted last year.
A) The Coordination Mechanism/Task Force
The Child Friendly Initiative in Surakarta is coordinated by the Bappeda Office, which
also coordinates the Task Force for the CFC. The Task Force was created by a Mayor’s Decree,
and meets at quarterly basis. According to the interviews, it discusses public policies for
children, increasing the chances of cross-sector policies to be adopted in the city, and creating
solutions that are not only responsibility of one sector.
Members of the task force include the city representatives from education, health,
public security, Bappeda and Bappemas, as well as Universities, NGOs and representatives
from the City Child Forum. The Task Force is secretariat by the Bapermas Office.
While participation in the Task Force is guaranteed to different groups, influence in the
decision making process is not that straight forward. According to representatives from NGOs
that are part of the Task Force, the NGOs have influenced little in the process. According to one
NGO interviewee that is part of the Task Force, much of the policies are still implemented by
the areas without too much synergy, “ego is still a major obstacle in the coordination process”.
The same view was shared by some children that participated in previous meetings. According
to these children, few are the adults, even in the Task Force, that are ready to listen to their
opinion, and take them into consideration.
While a representative of a University is part of the Task Force, his participation is also
limited. According to this representative, a situation analysis on children was done in 2011, but
its results where not discussed in the Task Force, and he does not know if the document was
used in planning policies for children. According to the same person, the issue is the lack of
reliable data for the city. Same point discussed by the NGO representative that sees lack of
data on children as a major issue to develop better public policies not only for children, but for
all in the city.
As a matter of fact, data seems to be one issue that ends up affecting not only the
development of the activities through the Task Force, but also the reporting that is done yearly
by the city. Data on children in Solo is not available from one data source. Each sector has its
own data that is later aggregated into a yearly report by Bappeda.

B) Action Plan
According to the interviews, the Task Force utilizes the List of Indicators set by the
Ministerial Decree 12/2011 as the action plan for the Child Friendly City initiative. The initiative
is then integrated into the action plan of the different areas of the city management (health,
education, etc.), and has the overall framework guaranteed by the city five-year action plan
(ARD).

50
 The city does not have a child budget. According to the interviews, the main reason for
that is the fact that the national framework that suggests how local budget should be organized
does not allow for the creation of a child budget. The lack of a child budget
C) Child Participation
The city supports two instances of child forums: one at city level – that represents the
reunion of representatives from the child forum at the villages – and the child forums at village
level. At some point, the city has initiated 51 child forums (one in each village of the city).
Today, the number has been reduced and the numbers of those that are active are unknown.
Each child forum has a facilitator that was trained by the city to work with the adolescents.
These facilitators are volunteers, and seem to be the most active participants among the youth
of the communities where they live.
According to the children interviewed, at the villages, the meetings for the Child Forum
happens at every two weeks. The meetings are a space where the adolescents discuss “simple
subjects” such as the condition of the local library, or the need of more play spaces. The
meetings and their agendas are communicated to other children in the schools murals, and
using new technologies such as SMS, Facebook and Twitter.
The city meeting for the Child Forum meets monthly. When the research team had the
opportunity to meet this group, they were in the process of preparing their program for the
year. According to the adolescents, the issues that are discussed at the villages is often brought
to also be discussed at the city level. One example that was given was the discussion on how to
reduce school dropouts in the villages, and how the child forum could help on reducing those
numbers.
It is still unclear if the City Child Forum has the opportunity to effectively participate in
the Task Force for the CFC initiative. Children from the Forum are invited to participate in
meetings, but they usually happen during school days, creating some difficulties for them to be
present at the Task Force meeting. One fact that called the attention of the research team was
the issue of school dropouts. As mentioned this was discussed at village and city levels, and it
was presented to the Task Force as a concern of the children in the city. According to the
children in the City Child Forum that were interviewed, they never got a feedback from the
education sector on this issue. Therefore, it seems that communication is still a factor that
might hinder a strong participation of civil society in the Task Force. The interview with the
NGO representative also showed that communication is still a factor that is usually mentioned
as need for improvement in the CFC initiative in Solo.
The Child Forum has a close relationship with Bapermas. Besides the training that some
facilitators received in the beginning of the process in 2011, the participation of Bapermas staff
in the regular meetings seems to be frequent. When asked about this connection, the
adolescents that were in the meeting mention they feel more confortable with the presence of
Bapermas than the NGOs. Also, Bapermas has a small budget that is allocated for the activities
of the Child Forum. The children that participate in the meetings have the opportunity to
allocate the resources for the activities of the group.
While the frequent participation and sponsorship of Bapermas is not a problem, the
absence of the NGO and other non-governmental institutions should be taken into
consideration. The Forum is a good opportunity to discuss issues that directly affect children
and their families, and the presence of an independent view in terms of local public policies
should be seen as a positive instance to help children to construct their own opinion about

51
different subjects. Besides, some of these NGOs have a direct work with local communities,
they might be able to respond to some demands, and generate others.

D) UNICEF Support
UNICEF support for the initiative in Solo has been constant since 2009. The support is
done through the field office located in the region, and involves advocacy, capacity building,
policies formulation, and frequent contacts to monitor the progress. The support also involves a
close relationship with Bappeda and Bapermas in improving their efforts towards the initiative,
and continuous supervision and feedbacks to Solo government.

E) Other observations
During the field visit the research team was able to visit some basic services such as
school and health posts. In this visits, few were the teachers, doctors, nurses, etc. who knew
about the CFC initiative. The same with the adults we informally spoke.
The initial conclusion that the research team reached was related to the manner that
the initiative has been implemented in the city: top-down. The city mayor and its support staff
know about the initiative and use it as an opportunity to integrate the services, and look for
more efficient public policies. However, the ones that implement those policies do not
necessarily need to know about the CFC initiative, and how it takes place at higher city level. As
long as the services for children are available, and are attending the demand of the population,
the ignorance in terms of the CFC initiative is not a problem.

6.2 Poliwali Mandar

Poliwali Mandar is a district located in the West Sulawesi province. The district initiated
the CFD initiative in 2011 with UNICEF support through a seminar. The difference between this
district and other cities/districts in the country is that the initiative is being implemented at two
villages, and not at district level. It is a different concept than the other two cities/districts
visited since they both had the implementation at higher level, while at Poliwali Mandar, the
implementation was happening from bottom-up.
The framework for those two villages uses the initial 28 indicators developed before the
change in 2011. These indicators were adapted to the village reality and were increased to 42
indicators.
A) The Coordination Mechanism/Task Force
Due to its peculiarity – being implemented at village level – the CF initiative has not
developed a Task Force at the District Level, nor at the villages. The KHPPIA22 has been a
consultative group at village level that tries to coordinate the initiative; as a matter of fact, its
members are similar to the CFC task force of other places. According to the interviews, the
creation of new task force would imply to the budget allocation and cross cutting structure

22
The union of different institutions at the district level form the KHPPIA mechanism/team. Among them
are district level government, NGOs, Universities, Professional organizations, faith based social organizations, and
international organizations such as UNICEF, among others. The mechanisms is created through the decree of
governor and it functionally is under coordination of provincial Bappeda.

52
among agencies/ focal point. The KHPPIA mechanism of regular monitoring at Bappeda office
happens at quarterly basis, discussing the progress of implementation of government program,
including CFC implementation.
In spite of the fact that the District is not embracing the CFD initiative, Bappeda is still
the focal point for the child friend initiatives that happen at village level.

B) Action Plan
The two villages have no integrated action plan exclusively for the child friendly
initiative. The CF initiative is mainstreamed in each sector at village level, as these sectors have
a directive to incorporate children issues into their yearly planning document. Each sectors has
also the reference to evaluate the progress of their activities, and, as preparation for the
coming year, they have to describe why the achievements were slow.
As mentioned, the planning tool used by the villages is based on the national initial
indicators for CFC/D, with some changes and adaptations based on the village reality.
According to the interviews, one of the challenges for monitoring the indicators is related to the
local capacity to understand them, and to create the tools to collect the data. It is important to
remember that the data collected at village level is sent to different departments at district
level for their use in the district planning.
C) Child Participation
There is no child forum at district level, but each one of the two villages that are part of
the initiative in the district created a child forum. These forums were created in 2013, and meet
once a month. According to some adolescents that participate in the forum, the space is an
opportunity to discuss religion, and issues that are raised by children. When asked about an
example of issue that was discussed, the answer was related to birth registration. The forum
discussed their concern that some children still had no birth registration. That discussion was
brought to the attention of the head of the village. According to them, the head of the village
addressed their concern.
The Child Forum at one of the villages is formed by a small core committee with 5
adolescents. The committee invites other children for the meetings that usually happen during
the weekend or at night – so there’s no interference with schoolwork. According to the
committee, the presence in the Child Forum is relatively high, since the community is small and
children do not have many opportunities to be together in organized events. One of the
challenges posted by the children are the lack of facilitators for the Child Forum. In their view,
the facilitator could aggregate expertise in their debates, and could contribute to better
meetings.
The common vision found in the villages and at the district is that children already
participated before the creation of the Child Forum, during the Musrenbang23. Despite that
being true, the idea of the child forum might be a little different from their participation at the
Musrenbang. The Child Forum should be a safe space where children and adolescents can
address their views and concerns without being ashamed or considered childish by adults. The
Child Forum should work as a preparation for their participation in the Musrenbang.

23
Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan (Community Participatory Planning for Development)

53
 In the two villages, the Child Forum has a closer relationship with the village head;
children were recently invited to be participants in meeting and consultation on program
development at village level at least by the end of the year and mid-year planning to revise any
program adjustment.
D) UNICEF Support
UNICEF support for the CF initiative in the district happened mainly in 2011, when the
institution participated in a series of workshops with the Ministry of Women Empowerment and
Child Protection in the region about the child friendly city/district strategy. After the initial
support, the initiative was completely implemented by the heads of the two villages.

E) Other observations
The choice of the two districts was not based on a formal assessment, but on the
experience and engagement of the people in the community. The two villages chosen by the
district to implement the initiative had experience on participation processes, and had good
administrative tools. According to the interviews, at the two villages, the community leader
commitment with the initiative was evident.
At district level, the agreement among those interviewed is that the choice of starting
the child friendly initiative small, in only two villages was the correct one. The reading done at
district level was that a smaller initiative Now, the objective is to expand the CF to other
villages. According to the managers at the districts, it is evident that the planning for the two
villages clearly shows the engagement with children issues; the same is not visible in other
villages.

6.3 Aceh Besar

The district is located in the extreme western part of the country, in the island of
Sumatra. The Child Friendly Initiative is being implemented at district level and started in 2010.
A) The Coordination Mechanism/Task Force
The Task Force for the CF initiative was created by a Bupati’s24 decree (#277/2011),
which mentioned 14 points to be considered by task force in creating CFD, as well as 7 targets
to be achieved. The task force is formed by representatives of sectors/ departments/
government offices, unit of organizations or related institutions at the district level,
NGOs/Universities/Professional organizations/faith based social organization at the capital of
the district, under the coordination of Bappeda office. According to the information received,
the Task Force is set to meet at regular quarterly basis.
The interviews did not show a very active Task Force. More than one informant
mentioned that the group does not meet very frequent, and when they meet attendance and
participation are very low.
B) Action Plan
The district has an action plan for the Child Friendly initiative that is based on the 7
goals stated by the Bupati’s decree, and in the 31 indicators from the Ministry of Women

24
Head of the District in Indonesia

54
Empowerment and Child Protection. The District Action Plan has been composed for 2011-
2015, with the list of actions per clusters and pointed out responsible sector/office to
incorporate into planning document and as the reference to evaluate the progress and as the
basis for next year planning for catching up the un-achievable target. The objective is that the
coming action plan of CFD will be incorporated into Mid-term development plan 2015-2020.
According to the interviews, at the beginning, the action plan was not developed in a
participatory manner; that has changed and now the objective is to involve more the
community. On the other hand, despite the intent to involve more the community, the plan has
not being updated regularly. Hence, there is a divergence between the intention and the
actions involving the action plan for the initiative.
C) Child Participation
Child participation in the district was facilitated by Bupati’s decree # 200/ 2007 that
created the District Child Forum. In 2011, the local government formed a child parliament,
which has been used by the District government to gather children’s opinion in relation to
District priorities and development. Six child forums were established in 6 pilot child friendly
villages (in 3 sub-districts) by 2012. Besides, child representations are consulted during the
development planning sessions (Musrenbang) and decision-making process at village, sub-
village and at District levels.
Child participation is also facilitated in some schools in the district, especially those that
have older students, and have support from international organizations such as USAID. For
example, one secondary school that was visited in the district receives funds from USAID to
implement student empowerment activities where students are taught to improve their
participation in their community, having their teachers as facilitators. Besides, after the
tsunami, many schools received funds from international donors; in exchange, schools have to
stimulate child participation at school. Despite the investment in decision-making activities,
child participation is still very linked to their enrolment in extra-curriculum activities that
happen after class.
Children interviewed at school that are part of decision-making groups do not
necessarily participate in the Child Forum in their villages. Some of the students know about
the Child Forum existence, but they prefer to participate at school level. On their opinion, at
school, there is a better structure to participate, the activities are better organized, and they
feel empowered to participate.
Children that participate at the Forum mentioned that some of the activities developed
by them are very similar to the after class activities that schools have, including arts, sports and
religion. The Forum develops
D) UNICEF Support
UNICEF has supported all the workshops and seminar since the beginning of the
process in 2011. After the initial push, UNICEF kept doing its programmatic action (intensive
advocacy, capacity building, policies formulation, and frequent contacts to monitor the
progress) without relating it to the child friendly initiative. The organization has a close
relationship with Bappeda and BKSPPPA.

E) Other observations

55
 The child friendly district initiative happened much after the recovery period post
tsunami. According to the interviews at Bappeda, the child friendly initiative had no relation
with the tsunami, and had not influenced on the recovery effort.

6.4 Balikpapan
Balikpapan is a city located in the Kalimantan (Borneo) Island, and one of the main
business centers in the country, with some important mining and oil companies offices located
in the area. The city started the Child Friendly process in 2010, but officially enrolled the
initiative in 2011. According to the interviews, the two main factors that influenced the city to
be part of the child friendly initiative was the visit of governmental officials to talk about CFC/D
and the support from the province government to the CFC/D strategy. As a matter of fact,
Balikpapan was the first place that mentioned the support of the province level government to
the Child Friendly initiative.
The visit to Balikpapan showed how the continuity of the Child Friendly initiative is
affected by changes in the staff responsible for it. When the city was visited, the initiative was
under the coordination of BPMPPKP (Community Development, Women Empowerment and
Family Planning) and the person responsible for it was in the position for about one month. As a
consequence, much of the information that was collected in the interviews could not be
validated for more than one source, affecting the data collection process and the accuracy of
the information compiled during the field trip. One example is related to the existence of the
Task Force and how frequent it met (item A below). While the members of the Child Forum
mentioned that the CFC Task Force usually met at a monthly basis, a representative of the
health department that was part of the Task Force said that the last meeting took place in
January. Meanwhile, the responsible for the CFC initiative at BPMPPKP did not know when the
last meeting took place.

A) The Coordination Mechanism/Task Force

The city has a task force created by a Mayor’s decree to coordinate the city’s
participation in the CFC initiative. The coordinator of the Task Force is the head of Bappeda
who was not available for the interviews. The Child Friendly focal point at BPMPPKP and other
interviewees were not able to provide more details about how the Task Force was organized,
how often it met, and if it was active. It seems that the Task Force meets at monthly basis, with
the participation of the Child Forum. There are no evidences about the participation of NGOs
and other organizations .

B) Action Plan
According to the interviews, the city does not have a dedicated action plan for the CFC
initiative. It uses the list of indictors as guidance for action. During one interview, it was
mentioned that the city is going to hire an external company to facilitate the process of
developing a “master plan” for the Child Friendly initiative. It seems that the last time the
action plan (31 indicators) was monitored was in a meeting in January of 2014 when budgetary
issues were also being discussed.

56
 C) Child Participation
The child participation seems to be the strongest component of the city. The Child
Forum started in 2011 when some adolescents were invited to participate in a meeting in Solo.
Today, the Balikpapan Child Forum is formed by 32 children divided into five thematic divisions:
(i) health and sports; (ii) education; (iii) environment; (iv) technology; and (v) religion. Each
division has a responsible that organizes and mobilizes other children for the activities that are
planned for the year.
The Child Forum meets in a space lent by BPMPPKB at least once a week to discuss
internal topics, and its external activities happen at every two weeks in a large external space
during the car free day. In some of these external activities the Forum involves adults who talk
about themes such as reproductive health, safe Internet, narcotics, and the importance of the
environment, among others. According to the members of the Child Forum, all children of the
city are invited to participate in both meetings, but the number of children that participate is
bigger in the external activities – around 40 children, most between 14 and 18 years old. The
lack of transportation was mentioned as one of the factors that hinder a bigger participation.
At their initial stages, the Child Forum used the student organizations as their basis,
and today it continues to work with the schools to mobilize children. One example is the “green
generation” project that started in 2012 and created a competition among schools to award the
one that is the most environmentally responsible. Today, this project receives support from the
mayor’s office, as well as from the Indonesia oil company (Pertamina).
The Balikpapan Child Forum is disconnected from the Musrenbang process. According
to the Forum members, they are invited to participate in the Musrenbang process as
representatives of the children. The children that are part of the forum consider themselves as a
separated entity from the government. According to their own words, they cannot be fully
independent – since they receive financial support from BPMPPKB – but they are not part of
the government, and do not consider themselves as “puppets”; they are partners, they have
their own voice, and are prepared to complain if they have too, and to advocate for their rights
if that is necessary.

D) UNICEF Support
The city did not receive any support from UNICEF.

E) Other observations
Unfortunately, Balikpapan was the clear example on what happens with the initiative
once changes in staff happen without proper planning. As mentioned, the person responsible
by the CFC initiative in the local representation of the Women Empowerment office was newly
appointed, and her knowledge on the basic features related to the Task Force and Action Plan
were very limited. When asked to speak to the person previously responsible, the research
team that conducted the visit were not allowed for reasons that were not disclosed. At the
same time, the person from Bappeda that attended the meeting knew little about the CFC. The
responsible at Bappeda is the head of that office, and he was not available.

57
58
Annex 7: Knowledge Sharing – The CFC Initiative in Brazil
The Municipal Seal initiative in Brazil is one of the most well-known child friendly initiatives in
the world. Detailed information can be found in the following:
http://www.selounicef.org.br/ (in Portuguese)
http://www.selounicef.org.br/_selounicef.php?op=1&k=2
http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/interest/fuentes.pdf
UNICEF Municipal Seal Of Approval – Implementation elements for Other Latin American
Countries (Document available for download at
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/30755724/UNICEF-MUNICIPAL-SEAL-OF-APPROVAL)

The following are some slides that illustrate the initiative and were presented in the debriefing
section:

59
60
61
62
63
64
Annex 8: References

Boothby, N., Stark, L., Simmons, K., & Chu, E. (2009). Child Protection Information Management
Mapping: Towards a Data Surveillance System in Indonesia. UNICEF, Universitas
Indonesia and Columbia University, Jakarta.
Center for Population and Policy Studies. (2013). Evaluation Report. Review Of Situation Analysis
Of Children And Woman (SitAn): Creating a Holistic Child-Friendly Planning Tool. Gadjah
Mada University, Yogyakarta.
Centre for Data and Information / Ministry of Health of Indonesia. (2007). Indonesia Health
Information System Review and Assessment. Jakarta.
Haryana, A. (2013). Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in Indonesia. Third International
Conference on National Evaluation Capacities 2013. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Malone, K. (2013). Can I be recognized as a Child Friendly City? A discussion on the
accreditation of child friendliness. 2013 Child Friendly Cities Asia Pacific Conference.
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection. (2011a). Ministerial Decree 11/2011.
Jakarta.
Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection. (2011b). Ministerial Decree 12/2011.
Jakarta.
Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection. (2011c). Ministerial Decree 13/2011.
Jakarta.
Minister of Women Empowerment and Child Protection. (2011d). Ministerial Decree 14/2011.
Jakarta.
UNICEF Indonesia. (2013). Government of Indonesia and UNICEF: 2011-2015 Country
Programme action plan Mid Term Review. Jakarta.
UNICEF Indonesia and KPPPA. (Jan 2013). Mapping Children Participation Initiatives in Indonesia.
Jakarta.
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. (2004). Building blocks for developing a child friendly city.
UNICEF/Innocenti Research Centre. (March 2004). Building Child Friendly Cities: A Framework for
Action. Florence.

65